If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
3 SB's in four years, if that isn't a dynasty I don't know what is.
I know... most think it was.
To be, dynasty is one of those words thrown out there too often, like "great" or "elite".
To me, dynasties are rare.
Bulls with Jordan
Old school Edmonton Oilers
Old school NY Islanders
The Braves of the 90's were damn close, but they didn't win the WS enough, just once.
That might be part of my complained about the Patriots that keeps them on the fence for me. I, wrong or right, feel like if they had Scott Norwood or Nate Kaeding kicking for them, they would have not won any of those Super Bowls. Or if they had a ref that didn't give them the BS tuck-rule.
They had to rely on their kicker for all that, and to me, that's not dominance.
Also, they didn't sustain dominance other than the 2007 season, ironically in a season they didn't win it all.
I remember the scores of Super Bowls in the 1980's and 90's, and teams like Dallas & San Francisco just crushed teams, so did the Redskins.
All the Patriots SB's were nail-biters which could go any way depending on a bad call by a ref or a kick.
That's impressive that they won them all, but I don't think the word dynasty fits. People are too generous with that word. To me, that word is special and rare.
I think the lack of a cap allowed teams to keep around those elite talents they would have to let go FA at some point. Also keep in mind that in those days without free agency the market for salaries and contracts was much less explosive as it is now.
Honestly removing the cap at this point could lead to some teams really getting the shaft.
Sig by Fenikz
I remember NFLDC don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend
I've said for a long time that baseball has more parity than a lot of people give it credit for. The 'lack of parity' comes up when dynasties play well but there are a lot of teams that just manage the market really well.
One thing SIGNIFICANTLY different from baseball and football is how late the trade deadline really comes. In baseball, it's over half the season. In football, it's well before half the season is over. It's realistic that week 6 is quite a few teams 5th game. And no team is usually ever completely down and out by week 5. A few maybe, but how many of them have assets anyone would want in a fire sale? Rarely any.
I think the salary cap just did a good job in controlling how much specialist and other 'non-important'/role players got paid by implementing the salary cap floor. I don't think the ceiling really did anything.
edit: A general rule in sports: Elite teams develop young talent. They draft well. They trade well. That's regardless of a salary cap. While some might disagree, the bulk of the reason the Patriots are in the playoffs almost every year (or at least in the hunt) is because they draft good, young players at important positions and recently, because they are loaded with good young talent. Other teams have done the same.
how do you plan to do that? let's say the bucs pick up QB X next year in the draft (purely for argument's sake, no comment on freeman) in the 6th round. QB X gets signed for next to nothing for 3 years, but turns out to be Tom Brady's slightly younger, slightly less evil twin brother. the bucs, like the devil rays, quickly turn into a contender. but then, X's contract expires. he wants a peyton manning contract. the bucs tell him to get ****** because the glazer's would rather keep that extra money and draft some other dude in the 6th. i mean, people came to the games before they were good, right? why waste money.
so now you've got a team that, if they continue to scout well, will be decent once every three years, then will turn over the player it needs to be competitive to whoever feels like spending the most money that year.
or, you're going to somehow compel that qb to stay with whatever team signs him for below market value (somehow, i don't see that getting past the anti-trust lawsuits).
i don't *entirely* disagree with the idea that a salary cap doesn't help anymore. and really, if the salary cap stays gone, a rookie wage scale should never be introduced, as it would prompt more players to join super teams when their original drafting team refused to pay them after their cheap contract expired.
All valid points.
No matter what, I think they're going to have to come up with something fairly new and creative. The salary cap helped create parity to a certain extent, but it failed miserably in curbing players' salaries, which was its intended purpose. They're gonna have to come up with something different, and I'm interested to see what it is.
As weird as it is to say, I'm looking forward to the CBA negotiations. I'll miss football if there's a lockout, definitely, but creating a new landscape for teams to work out of is something that intrigues me.
There's valid arguments in favor of and against a salary cap/floor. Only way to find out if the cap really does create parity is to go on without it, and only time will tell if that's really going to happen. The Redskins outspend everyone almost annually, and it doesn't seem to work out well for them. Creating a championship team is about a lot more then just spending money on talent and I think the league would do just fine without a cap, unless players demands and holdouts get completely out of control.