• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      The Bill Callahan era began here at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. For the first quarter it was really,really bad football being played by both teams. 
      The Redskins were determined to establish the Run game. The First Quarter all they established was that they still couldn’t run. Or pass. Or do much of anything. 
       
      It wasn’t until the 2nd Quarter that Peterson was able to start ripping the worst Run D in the League for chunks of 18 & 24 yards. The Skins managed to score a TD with a 25 yard pass to Scary Terry McLaurin. 
       
      The Dolphins would open the Second Half only managing five plays before the Redskins would get the ball punted back to them. They would run a balanced run/pass attack of six plays for 70 yards in 1:25 ending in McLaurin’s second touchdown of the day. The Defense would then get a turnover allowing the Offense to get to Field Goal range and add another 3 points to make the score 17-3. 
       
      To open the Fourth Quarter, Hopkins would miss a 55 yard Field Goal, leaving the score at 17-3.  After being sacked five times, the Dolphins would pull their own switcharoo at QB and go to Ryan “Neckbeard” Fitzpatrick which resulted in a touchdown drive for them, making it 17-10. They went for & recovered the Onside Kick. They also managed to not score any points after that. The Dolphins would find theirselves with ball at the 2:00 Warning. Fitzpatrick would take them on a 9 play 75 yard touchdown drive with six seconds remaining on the clock. Miami went for the win with the 2 Point Conversion and failed. The Redskins would recover the onside kick by Miami and Keenum took a knee to get the Redskins their first win of the season. 
RonArtest15

***2019-2020 NBA Season Thread***

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Set a hard cap at 100 million and let LeBron James sign a 50 or 60 million per year contract and his team won't be able to sign Anthony Davis too.  It's fair and effective.

 

Seen you bring this up before, agree with hard cap, but aren't you worried without max contracts superstar contracts will get out of control?  Is your goal only one superstar per team, because it sounds like it will lead to what's happening in the NFL where QB contracts dominate the cap and make it hard for franchises to field teams around them.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

There is a much easier solution to prevent top ten players from teaming up with each other, but doing so without punishing them for being great: get rid of max contracts and institute a hard cap.

 

Parity doesn't come from keeping superstars locked in to the teams that draft them.  That is an indirect solution at best, as teams can draft multiple superstars, especially via tanking.

 

Let players sign contracts in an open market that isn't defined by artificial exceptions that put almost everyone in a weird place where they are some kind of exception--vet player exception, mid-level exception, max contract exception, etc.

 

Set a hard cap at 100 million and let LeBron James sign a 50 or 60 million per year contract and his team won't be able to sign Anthony Davis too.  It's fair and effective.

But what's to stop LeBron from taking a discounted contract?  But I agree, hard cap would be better on putting small market teams on equal footing.  I doubt Player's Association would go for it though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Seen you bring this up before, agree with hard cap, but aren't you worried without max contracts superstar contracts will get out of control?  Is your goal only one superstar per team, because it sounds like it will lead to what's happening in the NFL where QB contracts dominate the cap and make it hard for franchises to field teams around them.

 

The market will bear what it can bear.  If every team is playing on the same field, then it's a fair system.  There will always be and ought to be trade-offs in team building.  You can spend a ton of money to keep one high impact player, or spend to get a bunch of cheaper, lower impact players.  This is how it should be IMO.

 

But I would also build in more amnesty provisions to help teams deal with severe injuries like Wall's, since the cap would be so restrictive in a market where contracts are fully guaranteed.  The NFL should do the same. No more getting screwed over for three years just because your QB took a terrible hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

But what's to stop LeBron from taking a discounted contract?  But I agree, hard cap would be better on putting small market teams on equal footing.  I doubt Player's Association would go for it though

 

20 million dollars a year?  I feel like if a player is willing to walk away from tens of millions of dollars a year to play with one of their peers, well that is a pretty sufficient penalty for tipping the competitive balance of the league.

 

One of the reasons players team up is arms racing.  If there aren't any other super teams, there is a lot less incentive for a player to turn down huge money to ring chase.

 

The way you get the NBAPA to agree to a hard cap is by getting rid of max deals and offering them other carrots.  The harder sell is getting the rich franchises to give up their revenue advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The market will bear what it can bear.  If every team is playing on the same field, then it's a fair system.  There will always be and ought to be trade-offs in team building.  You can spend a ton of money to keep one high impact player, or spend to get a bunch of cheaper, lower impact players.  This is how it should be IMO.

 

That's tough because I don't see how this benefits a team that drafts more then one all-star.  Like I mentioned im mad GS add KD to what they had, they deserve respect for building what they already had through the draft, there's a difference.

 

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

But I would also build in more amnesty provisions to help teams deal with severe injuries like Wall's, since the cap would be so restrictive in a market where contracts are fully guaranteed.  The NFL should do the same. No more getting screwed over for three years just because your QB took a terrible hit.

 

Agree on bringing back the amnesty provisions.  There are several things that both leagues should look at from one another, id love to see max contracts in the NFL to stop what's going on with the QB contract arms race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one would talk about competitive balance if they'd just reseed the playoff teams before the playoffs. Even during the Warriors Dynasty run, they've faced some stiff competition in the West every year it seems.

 

I'm thinking that'll balance out the dominance of a specific team more than a hard cap would... I'm down for both though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I feel like if a player is willing to walk away from tens of millions of dollars a year to play with one of their peers, well that is a pretty sufficient penalty for tipping the competitive balance of the league.

 

Not to that extent but that’s kinda what the Lebron era Heat did right? 

 

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

id love to see max contracts in the NFL to stop what's going on with the QB contract arms race.

 

Lets worry about this after Dak signs for $35+ mil a year 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that we are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

 

I'm sorry the Wizards have sucked every year since 1979. I truly am. But maybe the problem is within that organization and not in the league as a whole.

 

Seriously, how many teams in NBA history have drafted two All Star level guards within a few years of each other and still ended up as the single most hopeless team in the league while not actually losing those two players? It's remarkable.

 

The Warriors had a five year run. That almost certainly seems over. The Celtics had a 13 year run in the 50s and 60s. The Lakers had a 12 year run in the 80s and 90s. The Bulls would have had a 10 year run had Jordan not left to play baseball and then left because their ownership was insane.

 

There's a legit chance at a Clippers-Bucks Finals next year. What exactly are we trying to stop?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bearrock said:

Why shouldn't all max contracts be restricted contracts?  Just institute a rule that allows teams to keep their free agents by offering max contracts.  If you're getting the max, what does it matter who you get it from? As it stands, all top picks essentially become a limited stint unless you're in a major market.

 

So Lebron would just be trapped on Cleveland with Ricky Davis as his best teammate for the rest of his natural life?

 

We have seriously just had two of the most fun mini-dynasties in sports history (Heat and Warriors) with one of the more remarkable long-term sporadic dynasties we've ever seen. And you guys are mad about it. I honestly don't get it.

 

Since 2001, we had Shaq and Kobe implode. Both win titles without the other. The Spurs sustain their excellence as the team that wins when someone else can't. The Pistons make Rasheed a champion. The Celtics re-emerge. Lebron. The Big 3 in Miami. Dirk. The Warriors. And now Kawhi.

 

Meanwhile, in the sport McQueen wants the NBA to copy, it's been the Patriots. Every year. Until we die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fwiw, Dubs are expected to offer max contracts to both Klay and KD according to team sources. Also, KD face timed Klay last night after the injury/game and said they have unfinished business.

 

We'll see but it's not like the Dubs ownership and FO are afraid of a luxury tax. Plus the new Chase Center $'s are going to be astronomical.

 

Edit..Roaracle was 53 years old (the oldest of any NBA arena). Only it and MSG were built prior to 1990.

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I still think that we are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

 

I'm sorry the Wizards have sucked every year since 1979. I truly am. But maybe the problem is within that organization and not in the league as a whole.

 

If I didnt have so much character building as a result of my DC fandom, I would make such a fierce evil eye at you that the chances of your fingers tingling unpleasantly would rise by at least two thousandths of a percent. No!  Make that three thousandths!

 

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

So Lebron would just be trapped on Cleveland with Ricky Davis as his best teammate for the rest of his natural life?

 

 

Yes.  Yes he would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Normally I agree would with you, but wasn't Kirk the first player to sign the tag in back to back seasons?  I look at it more as an attempt to protect small market teams, I have less of a bleeding heart for the players because of their contracts being guaranteed and amount of collusion they do with each other now. No more then two in a row and same rule of only one player at a time.

 

Until 8 years ago, wasn't Golden State considered small market? And while Toronto is a huge city, I think every NBA player and fan considers it as a frozen wasteland.

 

This big market/small market thing makes no sense to me in the NBA, because the Knicks are never good and never sign anyone and never keep anyone. Chicago hasn't really been good in 20 years. They never sign anyone. The Lakers were the best-run team in sports for 40 years. And they were great. They have been the worst run team for a decade and they suck.

 

The Eastern Conference Finals was the former garbage fires of Milwaukee and Toronto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Not to that extent but that’s kinda what the Lebron era Heat did right? 

 

They actually built that initial team through sign and trades.  The result was that LeBron and Bosh barely sacrificed anything.  I think it was less than two million a year for each.

 

They've since neutered sign and trades because they were such a bad loophole that undermined the purpose of the cap.

 

In a situation with no max contracts, if you're talking about differences in offers of ten or twenty million a year, that is some real sacrifice.  If a player is willing to do it, then my take is so be it.  But I would also make sure teams don't have a way of creating loopholes that essentially pay the player under the table.  Setting up movie and marketing and tv show deals and ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

If I didnt have so much character building as a result of my DC fandom, I would make such a fierce evil eye at you that the chances of your fingers tingling unpleasantly would rise by at least two thousandths of a percent. No!  Make that three thousandths!

 

 

Yes.  Yes he would.

 

I've rather enjoyed Lebron playing with good players.

 

I really wish I'd been talking to McQueen on this board when the Lakers traded for Mychael Thompson. I may have joined him in storming the league office that day. Soooooo mad.

 

I need someone to explain why all the power in the league should reside with James Dolan and Jerry Reinsdorf and not Lebron, Durant, etc.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you are going to rebuild an NBA system, how about no cap, but for each "max" contract you sign over a certain number (say 2), you lose a #1 pick in one of the next 2 drafts. So New York can sign Durant, Davis, Kemba, and whoever else, but they have no draft picks for the next two seasons. Or maybe every time that you sign a FA from a team, that team gets your next available, #1 pick.

 

That could actually incentivize New Orleans into keeping Davis for a year and trying to sell him on a future with Zion, if they were going to get the Knicks or Lakers #1 pick in 2020. (You would have to do free agency before the draft).

 

This also would have killed the Lebron back to Cleveland move as the Heat would have taken that #1 overall pick instead of it being a trade piece for Minnesota.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I really wish I'd been talking to McQueen on this board when the Lakers traded for Mychael Thompson. I may have joined him in storming the league office that day. Soooooo mad.

 

The reason the EC bracket was so glorious this season was because there were no super teams.  Cleveland got demolished and Boston ended up being not as good as almost everyone thought they would be, and Philly sold out their future to untrack a potential super team down the road.  It created a competitive field that would have had five evenly matched teams had Oladipo not gotten hurt.  If you mirror that in the West you've got the kind of league we want.  30 strong franchises.  10 contenders at a time.  10 more working their way to that point in the near future.  10 more beginning their rebuilds.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't want the NBA to go back to the 80s like you do.  Nor the 60s.  Nor even the 70s, where despite having a variety of champions, teams still routinely fielded rosters with four and five hall of famers on them.  What I want is something that's unprecedented in the history of the NBA--a league that doesn't cater solely to casuals and front runners, but builds up 30 strong franchises through competitive balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Until 8 years ago, wasn't Golden State considered small market? And while Toronto is a huge city, I think every NBA player and fan considers it as a frozen wasteland.

 

This big market/small market thing makes no sense to me in the NBA, because the Knicks are never good and never sign anyone and never keep anyone. Chicago hasn't really been good in 20 years. They never sign anyone. The Lakers were the best-run team in sports for 40 years. And they were great. They have been the worst run team for a decade and they suck.

 

The Eastern Conference Finals was the former garbage fires of Milwaukee and Toronto.

 

The conversation isnt so much about losing star players to larger markets, it's that smaller market teams are typically the ones we have and will see losing their stars to player collusion. 

 

Chicago is a good example of not having any players to lose in the last 20 years, save Rose who destroyed his knees before having a chance to even think about something like leaving to team up with some other players.  But will we ever see a super team form in say Utah?  I highly doubt it.

 

Think about though, how many stars on Raptors and Bucks were drafted or traded for versus being brought in via signing as free agents?  KL is most likely going to leave and we're already talking about whether Giannis will get someone to join him or leave to do the same thing.  Regardless of what else those franchises have done, theres nothing they can do to stop that even if they'd be lower seeded playoff teams without them.

18 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

But I would also make sure teams don't have a way of creating loopholes that essentially pay the player under the table.  Setting up movie and marketing and tv show deals and ****.

 

I have no idea how you stop that or you should.  That may be going too far, that's what their agent does for a living outside negotiating the NBA contracts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In every league, you're going to have a group of teams that head and shoulders better than most of the league... I think Steve's issue, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm off @stevemcqueen1, is he doesn't want to see the same group of teams dominate EVERY year.

I'm aware of New England's two-decade-long dominance in the NFL, but that's only because Bill pretty much mastered the system (and because he plays in the AFC East with the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins. That's another topic for another day though) but outside of NE, there has been a constant rotation of top teams in the NFL. It doesn't take a hard look to see that the hard cap for the NFL is the reason behind it.

 

Granted, things do seem as wide-open as ever right now, but all the top FA destinations are all being linked to the same teams except for the Clippers and the Nets, but we all know why they're in the mix now as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CrypticVillain said:

In every league, you're going to have a group of teams that head and shoulders better than most of the league... I think Steve's issue, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm off @stevemcqueen1, is he doesn't want to see the same group of teams dominate EVERY year.
 

 

 

I find this ludicrous. The super team that is triggering this is the freaking Warriors - one of the three worst franchises in the league for the past 40 years. There is no reason to believe that once Steph's ankles finally shut down that all the Silicon Valley money in the world is going to keep them at the top of the league.

 

The super team that rode along side them for four years was freaking Cleveland. They are never going to be good again. We all know this.

 

The prior super team was the Heat. They are a rotting husk.

 

The prior super team was the Lakers. They probably will be good again. Or they may become the Knicks - West.

 

Also, James Dolan related issues aside, the Knicks getting Davis and Irving would be great. The league is more fun when the Knicks are in one of their rare good periods. Also, that's bound to end in absolute disaster, which will also be fun.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I have no idea how you stop that or you should.  That may be going too far, that's what their agent does for a living outside negotiating the NBA contracts. 

 

I'm not talking about stopping endorsements.  I'm talking about stopping teams from directly setting up the deals as incentives to sign with them in free agency.  When Dwight Howard was a free agent back in like 2012, as part of their compensation package the Lakers offered to develop a TV show for him.  Another thing teams do is give a bunch of jobs to the entourages of star players.  These are shady attempts to circumvent the salary cap and offer players more value, either under the table or in their contracts than the cap allows.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I'm not talking about stopping endorsements.  I'm talking about stopping teams from directly setting up the deals as incentives to sign with them in free agency.  When Dwight Howard was a free agent back in like 2012, as part of their compensation package the Lakers offered to develop a TV show for him.  Another thing teams do is give a bunch of jobs to the entourages of star players.  These are shady attempts to circumvent the salary cap and offer players more value, either under the table or in their contracts than the cap allows.

 

This I do agree with. That should be calculated into the total salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CrypticVillain said:

In every league, you're going to have a group of teams that head and shoulders better than most of the league... I think Steve's issue, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm off @stevemcqueen1, is he doesn't want to see the same group of teams dominate EVERY year.

 

That's not really it.  What I want to see is a competitive field of 8 to 10 teams with a realistic chance of winning a championship every year.  I want it to be a league where, if you get a top ten player, and you build a solid team around him, then you will have a chance at winning a ring.  For a long time we've had an NBA where it's usually just two or three or at most four teams with a realistic chance at winning a ring.  That's boring.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

The league is more fun when the Knicks are in one of their rare good periods.

Why do you believe this? People say this all the time and I never cared enough to ask why. 😂

Smh... When will people get over it? 

FB_IMG_1560545189947.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.