(01-03-2016 07:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 07:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Broncos are proving you don't need a great QB to win in the NFL.

Um they are playing arguable one of the top 2 or 3 quarterbacks of all time, who came in and replaced the other guy who was not winning.

(01-03-2016 07:47 PM)panama Wrote:  Not new information. Trent Dilfer has a ring.

Hey now!

I've watched nearly every Broncos game this year. Peyton used to be a great QB.

(01-03-2016 11:01 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  The NFL is boring in terms of offenses. College football has a richer variety of systems. In today's NFL, you require a star quarterback or a hot hand gunslinger to win the Super Bowl.

Honestly I think that has to do with the plethora of poor defensive teams in college football we have on the whole. No matter who the quarterback is if you throw big plays like we do in college with the defensive players and schemes they have in the pros it will go terribly for you. That is why we have so many great QBs in college get exposed badly in the NFL.

(01-03-2016 09:49 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  What?! The salary cap is basically what has propelled the NFL to being the number one sport nationwide. It gives every team a legitimate chance to win every year. It is not like baseball where a handful of teams buy up all the best players. A guy like Aaron Rodgers can play in Green Bay and they can afford him.

There is no way they will ever get rid of the salary cap - nor should they.

MLB is probably the most interesting major sport because of there being no salary cap. There's more parity than the other big four and most teams are assembled differently from one another. And teams buying all the big name players hasn't worked in the post-steroid era.

Payrolls in World Series since 2002.

2015 - #16 vs. #21
2014 - #7 vs. #19
2013 - #4 vs. #10
2012 - #5 vs. #8
2011 - #10 vs. #12
2010 - #10 vs. #27
2009 - #1 vs. #7
2008 - #12 vs. #29
2007 - #2 vs. #25
2006 - #11 vs. #14
2005 - #12 vs. #13
2004 - #2 vs. #11
2003 - #1 vs. #25
2002 - #10 vs. #15

(01-03-2016 08:59 PM)panama Wrote:  Green Bay

They're unique to the NFL too, as one of the most supported teams in the NFL. They're the anti-thesis of the urban university with tens of thousands of students and alums nearby that struggles to draw that amount of people for an entire season of games.

(01-03-2016 09:12 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 09:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

Kittonhead Wrote:

(01-03-2016 08:59 PM)panama Wrote:  NFL has no small market teams, another plus.

Green Bay

I think he means economically. As compared to the other leagues.

Green Bay? lol

Not Green Bay the city, but the Packers as a franchise.

(01-03-2016 09:49 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  What?! The salary cap is basically what has propelled the NFL to being the number one sport nationwide. It gives every team a legitimate chance to win every year. It is not like baseball where a handful of teams buy up all the best players. A guy like Aaron Rodgers can play in Green Bay and they can afford him.

There is no way they will ever get rid of the salary cap - nor should they.

It also differs from baseball in that there's a league wide TV contract, so even without a salary cap, the Packers could still have high profile players and not have it be a big deal unlike, say, the Athletics vs. the Dodgers.

But I do agree that the salary cap is ultimately beneficial, otherwise the 49ers, Steelers, Cowboys and the NFC East likely would have dominated the last 20 years of the NFL.

This whole running the football discussion, tell that to Carolina.

#1 rushing team has created the #1 scoring offense and a top 10 YPG offense. That combined with a top 5 defense and a star QB - you've got a championship team. The blueprint hasn't changed, and it probably never will.

Tell it to Seattle too.

(01-03-2016 09:21 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 09:05 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Polian effect is relevant but I'm still baffled why the running game has fallen off as much as it has. Is it due to the extinction of the fullback? Is it because lineman are leaner and more athletic? I don't see it. I just think we've lost the outstanding athletes on the line. Not many HoF players there anymore. Teams don't build on the o-line anymore, at least not to run the ball. Not using high draft picks there.

I personally think the game is a lot more exciting than it was in the early 2000s. It's just that the rules and officiating are killing the product. The safety measures make the game more enjoyable and fluid, but it's the ticky tack penalties like holding and illegal contact and PI that have derailed the game. That isn't necessarily a safety issue. Defenseless receiver and QB protection rules are needed. We also need to promote the running game by being more lenient on holding.

It's just scheme. The bubble screen and quick slants to the slot are essentially long handoffs. Essentially teams are running less. It's always funny to me to then hear teams that rarely run audibly say they need to emphasize the running game. The running game isn't a switch you can turn on or off. So much of it is commitment, personnel and rhythm. You can't run it 10 times for 10 yards and give up. If you're going to run it 45 times a game you just have to run it 45 times EVERY game with the knowledge that it may not pay off sometimes until the 4th quarter. You also have to have mean nasty players who WANT to run block and that includes the TE and WRs. I am convinced that the Falcons are no longer good at it because at some point they became a finesse team despite spending the better part of the 70s, 80s and 90s as a power running team.

I agree on the commitment to the run and needed to have personnel that fit that mindset.

(01-03-2016 04:34 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:plus the hottest team is the Kansas City Chiefs.

Yup, with Captain Kirk! You like that?! :)

...Try that again. Unless the smilie indicates you're joking.

(01-04-2016 02:26 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  MLB is probably the most interesting major sport because of there being no salary cap. There's more parity than the other big four and most teams are assembled differently from one another. And teams buying all the big name players hasn't worked in the post-steroid era.

Payrolls in World Series since 2002.

2015 - #16 vs. #21
2014 - #7 vs. #19
2013 - #4 vs. #10
2012 - #5 vs. #8
2011 - #10 vs. #12
2010 - #10 vs. #27
2009 - #1 vs. #7
2008 - #12 vs. #29
2007 - #2 vs. #25
2006 - #11 vs. #14
2005 - #12 vs. #13
2004 - #2 vs. #11
2003 - #1 vs. #25
2002 - #10 vs. #15

Baseball is a little misleading, because it does show that money cannot beat bad scouting or bad deals, though it does give you do -overs than smaller market teams don't get. The actual world series champs and runner up have not always been the big payrolls, but the big payroll teams have been in contention more often than not. But IMO, note I am not an avid baseball fan so this is from afar, the evolution of the game into not quite Moneyball, but away from pure homerun hitters and fastball hurlers and into analytics, has allowed teams to compete with guys who years past might have been considered role players, and are thus cheaper, making payroll less important.

Also, in regards to payrolls, while there are some big differences, if you lop off the top 5-6, the next 15-17 teams have somewhat similar payrolls anyway, in the $90MM-$135MM range. Granted I realize that is still a big difference in payroll from $90 million to $ 135 million, but not near as much of a gap as if you add in the top 5 who get into $230 million payrolls.
the difference in payrolls between numbr

Don't watch a ton of NFL games, but have enjoyed watching the Bengals rebound after losing Dalton and
seeing McCarron & the D winning 2/3 down the stretch. Hue Jackson is a hell of a coordinator.

I don't know what I would do without the NFL on Sunday afternoons this time of year. Without golf tournaments, there wouldn't be anything else to help me get my afternoon nap.

And the great thing about it is that it doesn't matter who is playing. They all look the same to me.

(01-04-2016 11:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't know what I would do without the NFL on Sunday afternoons this time of year. Without golf tournaments, there wouldn't be anything else to help me get my afternoon nap.

And the great thing about it is that it doesn't matter who is playing. They all look the same to me.

It does all look the same, the glory years were from about 1970-2005. Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, Deion Sanders as Prime Time, Barry Sanders, etc...

(01-03-2016 05:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I enjoy going in person but I can't stand to watch it on TV.

Interesting. I feel it's the opposite. IMHO, the NFL is a perfect TV sport (and judging by the numbers, I'm not the only one that feels that way). Now, I generally think that attending a game is better than watching on TV for all sports, but the NFL game experience adds the least of any of the major sports compared to watching on TV. In contrast, watching hockey and baseball in person is a huge upgrade compared to watching on TV, while watching basketball (either NBA or college) and college football is a medium upgrade compared to watching on TV.

(01-03-2016 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 09:28 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  There's more 3rd down back types now, Sproles Woodhead, that are 150lbs. Deion Lewis was amazing for the Pats before he got hurt. 3rd 15 run a draw or misdirection. Look at Some of the best backs Peterson before Teddy Bridgewater, Steven Jacksons whole career. What was the last team to win that's best player was a running Back?

Marshawn Lynch in 2014?

They called his name the next year right

(01-03-2016 09:49 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 05:33 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The NFL has two major problems. The teams are all constructed very similarly and there's not as much parity as they claim. They need to do away with the salary cap.

What?! The salary cap is basically what has propelled the NFL to being the number one sport nationwide. It gives every team a legitimate chance to win every year. It is not like baseball where a handful of teams buy up all the best players. A guy like Aaron Rodgers can play in Green Bay and they can afford him.

There is no way they will ever get rid of the salary cap - nor should they.

Agree 100%. The NFL far exceeds college football and that's MOSTLY because of the salary cap. The parity is much better.... not sure what OrangeCrush was thinking there. There is usually a position or 2 that makes the difference OR it's because of the GM's decision making.

(01-04-2016 01:16 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Agree 100%. The NFL far exceeds college football and that's MOSTLY because of the salary cap. The parity is much better.... not sure what OrangeCrush was thinking there. There is usually a position or 2 that makes the difference OR it's because of the GM's decision making.

If you look back, the last couple of seasons, the super bowl winning team, won because they were getting franchise QB performance from a quarterback not making Franchise QB money. A quick look back:

2014 - New England vs Seattle - Russell Wilson made about $500k from his rookie deal, and Tom Brady was on a roughly $10 million "bargain" contract

2013 - Seattle vs. Denver - Russell Wilson made about $500k from his rookie deal vs. Payton Manning's $21 million deal

2012 - Baltimore vs. SF - Joe Flacco was on the tail end of his rookie deal, as was Colin Kaepernick

2011 - NY Giants vs. NE - Manning and Brady were both highly paid QB's

2010 - Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh - Rodgers and Roethlisberger were moderately paid at $6 MM

I point this out because in terms of the salary cap, every single on one of these teams got worse when they had to pay their quarterbacks the going "market" rate for a QB. Some got worse than others, but all went down.

Only NE stayed the same, and that is because Brady's contract went down, not up.

(01-04-2016 01:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 01:16 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Agree 100%. The NFL far exceeds college football and that's MOSTLY because of the salary cap. The parity is much better.... not sure what OrangeCrush was thinking there. There is usually a position or 2 that makes the difference OR it's because of the GM's decision making.

If you look back, the last couple of seasons, the super bowl winning team, won because they were getting franchise QB performance from a quarterback not making Franchise QB money. A quick look back:

2014 - New England vs Seattle - Russell Wilson made about $500k from his rookie deal, and Tom Brady was on a roughly $10 million "bargain" contract

2013 - Seattle vs. Denver - Russell Wilson made about $500k from his rookie deal vs. Payton Manning's $21 million deal

2012 - Baltimore vs. SF - Joe Flacco was on the tail end of his rookie deal, as was Colin Kaepernick

2011 - NY Giants vs. NE - Manning and Brady were both highly paid QB's

2010 - Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh - Rodgers and Roethlisberger were moderately paid at $6 MM

I point this out because in terms of the salary cap, every single on one of these teams got worse when they had to pay their quarterbacks the going "market" rate for a QB. Some got worse than others, but all went down.

Only NE stayed the same, and that is because Brady's contract went down, not up.

Goes back to my point on decision making by a GM. There's a balance in there.

Well you can't avoid that if you are a GM. The above is really the result of a "good" GM, because you picked the right QB, and now you have to pay to keep him. The problem is, once the Bears paid Jay Cutler $20 million per year, the game changed. Prior to that, only the truly elite QB's got that: Payton, Brees, and at the time Brady. Rodgers had signed for near that as well, coming off his SB. Then Cutler got $20 million. That then became the go to salary around the league for your franchise quarterback. Then the Ravens had to pay Flacco $20 million coming off a SB. Then Matt Ryan got $20 million. Then Tony Romo got $20 million. Then Cam. Then Andy Dalton. then Big Ben. Then Russell Wilson. Then Phillip Rivers. Then Eli. Sam freakin Bradford was offered $18 million, and he TURNED IT DOWN!

If your QB is good, you have to pay him $20 million. Kirk Cousins is about to be a $20 million man (likely) because of this trend. When yoru team was solid before, and then you have to divert assets to cover that cap hit, it harms your team depth.

(01-04-2016 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Well you can't avoid that if you are a GM. The above is really the result of a "good" GM, because you picked the right QB, and now you have to pay to keep him. The problem is, once the Bears paid Jay Cutler $20 million per year, the game changed. Prior to that, only the truly elite QB's got that: Payton, Brees, and at the time Brady. Rodgers had signed for near that as well, coming off his SB. Then Cutler got $20 million. That then became the go to salary around the league for your franchise quarterback. Then the Ravens had to pay Flacco $20 million coming off a SB. Then Matt Ryan got $20 million. Then Tony Romo got $20 million. Then Cam. Then Andy Dalton. then Big Ben. Then Russell Wilson. Then Phillip Rivers. Then Eli. Sam freakin Bradford was offered $18 million, and he TURNED IT DOWN!

If your QB is good, you have to pay him $20 million. Kirk Cousins is about to be a $20 million man (likely) because of this trend. When yoru team was solid before, and then you have to divert assets to cover that cap hit, it harms your team depth.

The salary cap increase should alleviate that

I'd have to look it up, and it would take way longer than it's worth, but I think $20 million, even udner the new cap, % wise is still more than QB's used to take years back. I am a Ravens fan, and I know a direct result of the Flacco deal was having to cut Ed Reed and Paul Kruger, and two other defensive starters. And that was eve with Ray Lewis retiring. The Seahawks had to let a few people go, and trade their center because of it. That was what I meant. The GM can only do so much, because you HAVE to keep that QB.