MattFancy Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Both great posts and sum up how I feel. The only advantage I can see for a rich team is that you can undo your mistakes much easier than a poor team. It's an advantage for sure, but I don't see the Redskins and Cowboys automatically squaring off in the NFC Championship Game for 10 years straight or anything. I agree. I mean the Yankees and Red Sox have only been in 5 WS this decade and the Yankees haven't been since 2003. I would imagine the Cowboys and Redskins would make a few Super Bowl trips, but it wouldn't be every year. I aslo think we'd still have turnover in the playoffs. This year in MLB they'll be 4 new playoff teams from last year. Yankees, Cardinals, Tigers/Twins, and Rockies/Braves/Giants. So half the playoff teams this year were not in the playoffs last year. That happens in the NFL too, usually 5 or 6 different teams make the playoffs from year to year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The problem is comparing baseball and football is apple and oranges. To me baseball is a lot more free agency driven. You can change almost half your roster on an annual basis. Look at the Yankees, sometimes they seem to have almost half the lineup contain different people than the year before. Also, I would way team chemistry is a lot less relevent in baseball than it is in football. In Football you need your O-line & D-line to have played games with each other for awhile in order to gel and understand how everyone elses playing style is in order to get the maximum potential out of them. Also the same with the QB's relationship with the WRs. For the most part you can't just sign someone as a FA and suddenly they are running the correct routes, have all the specific timing down. I think Dan Snyder's signing blitz in 2000, after we were a solid team in 1999, shows that just signing top talent doesn't automatically make you a better team, where as the Yankees & Red Sox have proven OTHERWISE in the world of baseball. Also the Yankees/Red Sox might not win the World Series every year, but every season they are a contender and they have so much talent on their rosters that it is hard for other teams to compete on a daily basis. Hell sometimes I think those two teams sign certain players merely to keep them from going to another division opponent, rather then actually needing that player to produce for them. Also, the spending can get very out of control. Oakland, an organization that is known for being small market to the T, offered Giambi 90 million dollars to resign after his MVP season when he became a free agent, 90 MILLION FREAKIN' DOLLARs......of course to the Yankees this was chump change, they just kept upping it until they knew the A's were priced out, and then look the Yankees never won a WS while Giambi was on the roster, and other then a couple of solid seasons, I would probably say Giambi would never go on to produce "100 million dollar" results. So to me it is apples & Oranges. In Baseball it is a lot easier to sign a FA and plug them in to where they need to be and see instant production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 So to me it is apples & Oranges. In Baseball it is a lot easier to sign a FA and plug them in to where they need to be and see instant production. Now that is very true. That's why no one cares about the NFL's trade deadline. You'd never see a star QB traded at the deadline, but star pitchers and hitters get traded all the time. But if anything, we've proven that signing the best FAs doesn't always work out. I think in football, just because someone is great on one team, doesn't mean they'll be great on another. It's more about systems and schemes than baseball. You still hit, pitch, and field the same way. So that's why I don't think football not having a cap would make a big difference. If the Lions signed Adrian Peterson when he became a FA, they wouldn't automatically be title contenders because if they have no QB or OL, AP won't make much of a difference. Football requires a total team to win, not just one or two players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I contribute greatly to the Redskins being # 1 on this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalRecall Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well, if they have no salary cap next year, then that is basically the same as having no revenue sharing. The owner with the most successful ventures outside the NFL will likely spend more on players and make bigger moves in the NFL draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The NFL has so much parity. I mean, just look at the Lions who just went 0-16. Look at the Patriots who went 16-0. Look at the Rams who are like 5-25 over the past 2 seasons. Look at the Browns who have 3 winning seasons over the past 15 years. Look at the Bengals who have 1 winning season over the past 15 years. Parity is bull****. It's been drilled into fans so many times by the NFl that they've begun to ignore the fact that year after year the SAME teams suck. Just like before free agency and the salary cap. Eliminate the salary cap so we can have good football again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCskinFAN Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Hell yeah ... We havent won shiiii in a looong time. And just for the record our revenue is like 3 times that of the next closest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCskinFAN Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 i contribute greatly to the redskins being # 1 on this list. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 as a skins fan, I understand the "selfishly" argument, I just can't believe if people are fans of the NFL and football, versus just fans of the skins, they would welcome a situation that could potentially eliminate some of the history, legacy, and parity of the league.... I think the NFL in its current state has never been stronger nor more interesting from start to finish... the era of the dynasties was top heavy and much too predictable during the regular season, for me... but to each his own, was just curious... Most of the "history and legacy" of the NFL is BECAUSE of the dynasties that we've seen. Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots, even Redskins for a brief period. And whether you like the Red Sox / Yankees profile of baseball, it certainly does get you national attention. Can you imagine a situation where a Red Sox / Yankees series is ever bad for the MLB? It would be the same thing with the Cowboys and Redskins. If the Bills of the world want to continue fielding teams without doing anything to make money because they can live off revenue sharing, then I think all you're doing is punishing teams that are successful and bring in more revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMU Redskin Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Are some of you high? I'd get rid of revenue sharing tomorrow if i could. bottom line, I want to see the Redskins get the best players and win the most games. Revenue sharing takes away our biggest advantage. If I'm paying absurdly high prices to get tickets and for concessions and parking at games, I want it going to the REDSKINS, not Jacksonville or Oakland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I'm curious why you'd (or anyone in this thread who feels this way) want the cap to be removed... how do you think it would improve the league? what don't you like about the current NFL that you feel would be improved if the cap was no more? I don't like paying double to see a game just so non-profitable franchises have a better bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I didn't think the Vikings would be the lowest. They have a whole state to themselves and probably a few to the west also. I guess now I know one reason they signed Favre. He probably moves them up the list 10 spots on just ticket and jersey sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.