Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Lets be honest only one group gets hurt in all of this


jbooma

Recommended Posts

Why are people talking about price increases to watch the 'skins, buy a beer etc.

This franchise must make excess money they cannot spend due the salary cap or lesser earning teams wouldn't be wanting some of it. If that is true then it is the lesser earning teams who will have to either raise prices or get more people through the gate or move somewhere where they will be in a position to compete. Once the smaller teams do that and assuming we can only compete by spending more money THEN you would expect to see price rises here.

Personally I don't think we need to spend more to compete. I don't think every other team will ever get fiscal parity with the 'skins and the other top tier earners and I damn sure don't think we should lose players who may not be superstars but bust a gut just because we have to pay our top players a fortune meaning so called lesser players have to up and move to make sure they are financially secure to provide for their family when they stop playing.

Look back in history and think of some or your favourite 'skins. I bet in this crappy CBA/salary cap era half of them would have had to leave even though they didn't want to.

Give me back my 10 year vets without them having to gimp themselves financially.... then we can have a true team again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Beers weren't $7 back in the "glory days" of the 70s and 80s Redskins, even adjusted for inflation.

This whole concept of Snyder/Jerruh raising prices on everything to these insane levels is pure fiction. Snyder is smart enough to know that there will be a limit to how much Skins fans are willing to pay before the fans stop showing up. There are PLENTY more avenues for Snyder to make up the difference other than $7 beer and $12 nachos.

He's also smart enough to know that if you price admission so that only Squire Reginald's and their wives Buffy can attend the games and arrive in their chauffered Rolls, the ferocity of Redskins fandom will be diminished by the quiet din of the tea and crumpet crowd. You have to have a mix of the haves and the blue/grey-collar almost-haves for an NFL team to be successful.

All of this price speculation is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The competition won't be weak. Look at the low revenue teams out there and tell me how good they've been WITH a salary cap. Are the Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, ect better than they were before FA? How come the Bengals were competing with the 49ers in the 80s and then it took them 15 years of cap time to get a decent team? I'd argue that well run small market teams will be succesful and poorly run rich teams won't. Also, I don't think this means that the overall salaries will increase so drastically but it will mean that the depth players on OUR team will be better/better paid than now. I just think the NFL put out a better product on the field before the salary cap. Dynasties are part of the intrigue of sports and while competitive balance should be strived for, I hate the current system which forces teams to cut well loved players who want to stay just because of the cap numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cap sucks. I hope it's going to be gone forever. It's socialism. I'm worried about 2006, but in the long run we should be golden. I'm tired of this parity BS. The way it is now, luck is a big factor in regards to the win/loss record because of injuries. It's impossible to have quality depth now. Watching turnover every year sucks. With parity, it makes it easier for the refs to influence a game because when the balance is equal, a ref's call can tilt the balance. Not seeing dominate teams like in the past sucks. Sure, you can bring up the Patriots, but there was still something missing with them in regards to those old school dominate teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cap sucks. I hope it's going to be gone forever. It's socialism. I'm worried about 2006, but in the long run we should be golden. I'm tired of this parity BS. The way it is now, luck is a big factor in regards to the win/loss record because of injuries. It's impossible to have quality depth now. Watching turnover every year sucks. With parity, it makes it easier for the refs to influence a game because when the balance is equal, a ref's call can tilt the balance. Not seeing dominate teams like in the past sucks. Sure, you can bring up the Patriots, but there was still something missing with them in regards to those old school dominate teams.

What was missing with the Pats? The media crowning them the greatest? If the Parity sucks then lets just contract the league to ten teams. The NFL is a product. It has become the world wide product that it is because of many factors, one of which is the cap. It has its place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was missing with the Pats? The media crowning them the greatest? If the Parity sucks then lets just contract the league to ten teams. The NFL is a product. It has become the world wide product that it is because of many factors, one of which is the cap. It has its place.

Well, that's your opinion. I've always hated the cap. In regards to the Patriots, I think the 91' Redskins, the Cowboys of the 90's, the 85' Bears would have whooped the 2000's Patriots in the Superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cap sucks. I hope it's going to be gone forever. It's socialism. I'm worried about 2006, but in the long run we should be golden. I'm tired of this parity BS. The way it is now, luck is a big factor in regards to the win/loss record because of injuries. It's impossible to have quality depth now. Watching turnover every year sucks. With parity, it makes it easier for the refs to influence a game because when the balance is equal, a ref's call can tilt the balance. Not seeing dominate teams like in the past sucks. Sure, you can bring up the Patriots, but there was still something missing with them in regards to those old school dominate teams.

In other words - you want to play with a built-in advantage. That's fine. I'm the type that - if it's not the Redkins - tend to root for the underdog. I will not want to watch a $200M team beat a $70M team 35-7 and then talk about how great that $200M team is. It's really not that impressive a victory to me.

Also - regarding the 2 extra years before free agency - why is it that everyone wants free market for the owners but not the players? That's hypocritical. Anyway - that buys a little extra time - but still won't change the fact that without a cap, once you are a free agent - there is probably MORE room for turnover - because nobody has any restrictions. And yes - for the Redskins - it may not be because someone else offers more for our guy. But it may well be because we offer more for someone else's guy and there's no more room for the Redskin veteran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The competition won't be weak. Look at the low revenue teams out there and tell me how good they've been WITH a salary cap. Are the Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, ect better than they were before FA? How come the Bengals were competing with the 49ers in the 80s and then it took them 15 years of cap time to get a decent team? I'd argue that well run small market teams will be succesful and poorly run rich teams won't. Also, I don't think this means that the overall salaries will increase so drastically but it will mean that the depth players on OUR team will be better/better paid than now. I just think the NFL put out a better product on the field before the salary cap. Dynasties are part of the intrigue of sports and while competitive balance should be strived for, I hate the current system which forces teams to cut well loved players who want to stay just because of the cap numbers.

Have you read Moneyball ? It's very good and I greatly admire the way the A's have been able to compete despite spending a ton less than other teams. And of course - there will always be some teams that spend a lot of money and don't win, and some teams that spend less money and do. But on average - those that spend more money WILL win a lot more games. And the A's have still not managed to even make the World Series against money teams like the Yankees and Red Sox.

And while yes - it sucks that beloved players get cut because of the cap, sorry - but they're still going to get cut without the cap. As I've said - everyone's like - it's great because we're going to be able to bring whoever we want on the team, and keep our beloved veterans. But unless I'm mistaken - they haven't changed the roster limits. Every time we bring in someone great and new from a team that couldn't afford to pay as much - we'll be letting someone go who we all would like to recognize as a lifelong Redskin.

And you're naive if you think we won't increase salaries that much. We are already paying more for multiple assistant coaches than most teams do for their head coaches. This type of advantage is kind of nice - working the system - but not overboard like if we're also able to pay whatever we want for players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets also remember that the skins were very good in the past because they could draft very well, something we have not seen in a while. It has been better under Gibbs but still nothing like before. With no cap then teams will not let their best leave anymore, they can just tag them to death since there will be another transistion tag availabe. You will not see as many FA's as you did with a cap, so the good teams will be ones that have strong drafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The competition won't be weak. Look at the low revenue teams out there and tell me how good they've been WITH a salary cap. Are the Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, ect better than they were before FA? How come the Bengals were competing with the 49ers in the 80s and then it took them 15 years of cap time to get a decent team? I'd argue that well run small market teams will be succesful and poorly run rich teams won't. Also, I don't think this means that the overall salaries will increase so drastically but it will mean that the depth players on OUR team will be better/better paid than now. I just think the NFL put out a better product on the field before the salary cap. Dynasties are part of the intrigue of sports and while competitive balance should be strived for, I hate the current system which forces teams to cut well loved players who want to stay just because of the cap numbers.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with a majority of what you said as a “Redskins Fan”, as a Connoisseur or football however I tend to disagree. The example that sticks out to me is the Super Bowl. Let’s look at two specific time periods. From 1981-1997 the NFC had a total of 6 different representatives in the Super Bowl.

Washington

Green Bay (once)

Dallas

Philadelphia

Chicago (once)

New York Giants

So in essence you knew at the beginning of the season pretty much who would contend. The casual fan that helps generate, NEW revenue for the entire NFL and all of its owners, can’t really get behind this, at least not to the degree in which we have seen in the time frame between 1998-2005. In this 9 year span we have seen 7 different NFC reps in the big game, the only ones to duplicate where the Rams and the Packers.

Well you might say that Dynasties are what makes the NFL great or makes sports in general great. Well you have the new dynasty. You have the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles (can’t believe I just wrote that). A team can still win 13-14 games a year with the cap. You just have to fight harder to do it.

I want the Redskins to be great but I also want the product of the NFL to be great. I’m not talking about the actual play on the field. To me that is a cop out. Teams don’t have to start rookie QB’s if they don’t want to. Also, if you argue that the product on the field has gotten worse, then I beg you to remember the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the 70’s and 80’s. Think about the Lions of the 90’s who wouldn’t surround a talent like Barry Sanders with capable players. In fact think about all of the teams that the Redskins used to smash. The teams you new where a win when the schedule came out. What fun does that add to the regular season? None. Why play those games, let’s just skip to the playoffs. The new NFL forces your team to be stout from the front office to the last man on your roster. There is nothing else like it in sports. It is often called the Golden Goose. We as NFL fans should cherish it.

Now if the cap goes away and the Redskins win 3 more rings, I will find a way to get over my sorrow for the rest of the NFL faithful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

best post of the day...... agree 110%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. If prices go up any higher on any of these things, I will have to strongly consider watching the Skins from my couch instead of attending. I may even close my eyes and ears during the commercials.

Just wait......the next thing to hit us is Pay per View Football. I'm actually surprised it hasnt happened yet anyways. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...