PDA

View Full Version : Why today's teams fail to repeat



Red Dog
02-24-2012, 05:05 PM
First reason is the cap. How wonderful that the NFL set up sharing the wealth (of champion players) with a cap that prevents the winning SB team (especially) from keeping their great players.

Second-Free agency, another NFL "sShare the wealth" of players with incompetent teams that cannot draft if they stepped in front of an open window during a hurricane. More of the "spread the wealth mentality."

Third, not a bad one as it creates promotions, is the hiring away of the winning teams' coaches again because other teams are incompetent in their hirings.

WHo of us hasn't scratched our heads in amazement at some of the bone-headed hirings of other teams FO's? It's along list (JJ-Redskins-Raiders, Jets, etc)
Last, maybe most important, the carrot is gone, the rabbit's been caught, motivation wanes, and SOME players ease up living off their SB win and then because of thast get hurt and out for the season

nygsb42champs
02-24-2012, 05:22 PM
Free agency and the salary cap are the 2 biggest reasons. Just look at Manningham. He has a o.k. regular season but had a good playoff run and now he is going to get paid big money like a #1 WR and the Giants can not afford him because of the cap.

NYGRealityCheck
02-24-2012, 06:33 PM
It's also to prevent consistent failures (usually smaller market teams) from ending up losing fanbase, revenue, can't sell tickets, going bankrupt, etc...

If you want to know a team that was single-handedly brought back to life by top-tier first-round draft picks, look no further than the once 0-16 Lions.

RagTime Blue
02-24-2012, 06:42 PM
I hear ya, but it's the way things are going to be. It just makes the GM the most important person in the franchise, since he's the only one with some semblance of job security.

I happen to think that the salary cap has its problems, but is really a very good thing. It prevents teams whose ownership makes lots of money outside of football (Redskins come to mind) from outbidding owners who absolutely need to turn a profit with the team.

You seem not to be in favor of "spreading wealth". I guess you wrote the O.P. during a commercial of Fox News?? [;)]

J/K. Good points, and let's hope Reese has a stellar off-season and maybe we can repeat!

TroyArcher
02-24-2012, 10:36 PM
Agreed. What is important I think is too bring a few good, hungry veterans each year to keep up the motivation. Can't do much with the cap and free agency but thankfully Reese has been doing a great job with drafts and FA's.

ru_gmen55
02-25-2012, 12:31 AM
I kind of prefer it that way...it's what makes the NFL fun. I hate how lopsided the other major sports are.

Toadofsteel
02-25-2012, 02:51 AM
The lack of a salary cap is why MLB is dominated by the Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox... The Mara family way back when could have built the Giants into a Yankee-like franchise, but chose to favor the salary cap/revenue sharing system we have now because it made it more fair across the league.

Flip Empty
02-25-2012, 03:15 AM
I don't see these things as a problem. Every NFL season is different which keeps the sport fresh and exciting.
Look at the cap-less, money-dominated football (soccer) leagues which have the same handful of teams competing for the title every year. It gets incredibly stale if the team you support isn't backed by a billionaire oil baron.

buddy33
02-25-2012, 08:12 AM
Those can be problems, but they where not problem this year for Green Bay. If anything they where in a great position getting healthy this year.

The reason why it's so hard to repeat is because it's so hard to get there in the 1st place. Now you try to get there again the next year. Plus every team wants to take down the champ.

GameTime
02-25-2012, 08:13 AM
First reason is the cap. How wonderful that the NFL set up sharing the wealth (of champion players) with a cap that prevents the winning SB team (especially) from keeping their great players. Second-Free agency, another NFL "sShare the wealth" of players with incompetent teams that cannot draft if they stepped in front of an open window during a hurricane. More of the "spread the wealth mentality." Third, not a bad one as it creates promotions, is the hiring away of the winning teams' coaches again because other teams are incompetent in their hirings. WHo of us hasn't scratched our heads in amazement at some of the bone-headed hirings of other teams FO's? It's along list (JJ-Redskins-Raiders, Jets, etc) Last, maybe most important, the carrot is gone, the rabbit's been caught, motivation wanes, and SOME players ease up living off their SB win and then because of thast get hurt and out for the season</P>


so it comes down that you would rather have a few really good teams and an overall crappy league??....</P>


Not me.....I would love to see the Browns, Detroit, KC, etc finally get in the big show. </P>


You bring up good points where some teams dont have to "work as hard" because good players and coaches will fall into their laps at times. BUT&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;some of the smartest and most well respected owners created, voted for, and champion the FA, salary cap AND sharing the wealth. It protects the league as a whole. The NFL is a business and each team is a franchise. You have to have measures that insure each franchise can survive or the league will go to ****...</P>


</P>

Coach Carter
02-25-2012, 09:25 AM
First reason is the cap. How wonderful that the NFL set up sharing the wealth (of champion players) with a cap that prevents the winning SB team (especially) from keeping their great players. Second-Free agency, another NFL "sShare the wealth" of players with incompetent teams that cannot draft if they stepped in front of an open window during a hurricane. More of the "spread the wealth mentality." Third, not a bad one as it creates promotions, is the hiring away of the winning teams' coaches again because other teams are incompetent in their hirings. WHo of us hasn't scratched our heads in amazement at some of the bone-headed hirings of other teams FO's? It's along list (JJ-Redskins-Raiders, Jets, etc) Last, maybe most important, the carrot is gone, the rabbit's been caught, motivation wanes, and SOME players ease up living off their SB win and then because of thast get hurt and out for the season</P>


so it comes down that you would rather have a few really good teams and an overall crappy league??....</P>


Not me.....I would love to see the Browns, Detroit, KC, etc finally get in the big show. </P>


You bring up good points where some teams dont have to "work as hard" because good players and coaches will fall into their laps at times. BUT>>>>>some of the smartest and most well respected owners created, voted for, and champion the FA, salary cap AND* sharing the wealth. It protects the league as a whole. The NFL is a business and each team is a franchise. You have to have measures that insure each franchise can survive or the league will go to ****...</P>


*</P>

Thank you, as Bill Maar said, the NFL uses a socialist system, that is why it is the most successful sports league in the USA.

Some people get fooled by what they hear on TV or talk radio.

jomo
02-25-2012, 09:30 AM
First reason is the cap. How wonderful that the NFL set up sharing the wealth (of champion players) with a cap that prevents the winning SB team (especially) from keeping their great players. Second-Free agency, another NFL "sShare the wealth" of players with incompetent teams that cannot draft if they stepped in front of an open window during a hurricane. More of the "spread the wealth mentality." Third, not a bad one as it creates promotions, is the hiring away of the winning teams' coaches again because other teams are incompetent in their hirings. WHo of us hasn't scratched our heads in amazement at some of the bone-headed hirings of other teams FO's? It's along list (JJ-Redskins-Raiders, Jets, etc) Last, maybe most important, the carrot is gone, the rabbit's been caught, motivation wanes, and SOME players ease up living off their SB win and then because of thast get hurt and out for the season</P>


so it comes down that you would rather have a few really good teams and an overall crappy league??....</P>


Not me.....I would love to see the Browns, Detroit, KC, etc finally get in the big show. </P>


You bring up good points where some teams dont have to "work as hard" because good players and coaches will fall into their laps at times. BUT&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;some of the smartest and most well respected owners created, voted for, and champion the FA, salary cap AND sharing the wealth. It protects the league as a whole. The NFL is a business and each team is a franchise. You have to have measures that insure each franchise can survive or the league will go to ****...</P>


</P> Thank you, as Bill Maar said, the NFL uses a socialist system, that is why it is the most successful sports league in the USA. Some people get fooled by what they hear on TV or talk radio.If it really was a socialist system, the Giants would take half my PSL and send it to a Jets fan wouldn't they? [:D]

SweetZombieJesus
02-25-2012, 10:03 AM
Also virtually every coach and player says it's hard enough winning a championship but winning a 2nd is almost impossible. Everyone is gunning for you every week, players may slack off thinking it's just going to happen because they already know what it takes, etc.

SweetZombieJesus
02-25-2012, 10:15 AM
You seem not to be in favor of "spreading wealth". I guess you wrote the O.P. during a commercial of Fox News?? [;)]


We all know how instrumental Wellington Mara was in setting up the shared revenue system. And nobody wants to see a situation like in baseball where the top 5 teams spend more on a single player than the entire payroll of smaller teams.

HOWEVER

We have a situation where badly run teams are subsidized, I believe just based on the TV contract they turn a profit, let alone stadium value, ticket sales and merchandising. If a team is guaranteed to turn a profit no matter how poorly it does, what is the motivation to improve? If their business lives depended on it, if millions of dollars depended on it, if the fortunes of the owner depended on it?

Further the good teams are not rewarded. Well, they are, they win championships, but they face a system designed to tear them down.

And I do have a moral problem with taking something away from someone who EARNED it and giving it to someone who didn't. If the Giants front office and coaching staff worked their butts off and some other coaching staff mailed it in, don't the Giants deserve to reap some reward for it?

We are creating a system where the weak do not face death and the herd never gets thinned. In a purely Darwinian sense the weak survive and propogate which doesn't aid the strength of the species. There is no cure for overexpansion. Does the NFL really need 32 teams especially when it seems there are 5-6 that are always on the brink of failure and threatening to relocate?

It's actually a strange optic chiasm. The two systems end up producing the same result at the extremes -- perennial noncompetitive wrecks and small market problem children. But in this case, as in the Rush song "The Trees", the cure is not to grow the smaller trees but to keep cutting the big trees down.

In the NFL, MLB, and NBA we have the same problems -- overexpansion, small market teams on the brink of failure, and constant threat of relocation.

Another reflection on the political reality of socialism -- it doesn't improve life at the bottom, it just spreads that misery to everybody and makes it really hard for anybody to rise above it.


On the NFL as a socialist system, yes and no. If you think of it as 32 teams, yes. If you think of it as one company with 32 branch offices (the more appropriate model), no.

Plus, you get the more creative franchises trying to get ahead (capitalism) -- such as Jerry Jones with his deals that skirt revenue sharing by making partnerships with the Cowboys and not the NFL; PSLs are another great example, as is stadium ownership in general (one of the greatest components of franchise evaluation and the real reason the Giants built the new stadium). It's like an old couple on a fixed income doing side jobs for extra cash.

swimeasy
02-25-2012, 10:21 AM
First reason is the cap. How wonderful that the NFL set up sharing the wealth (of champion players) with a cap that prevents the winning SB team (especially) from keeping their great players. Second-Free agency, another NFL "sShare the wealth" of players with incompetent teams that cannot draft if they stepped in front of an open window during a hurricane. More of the "spread the wealth mentality." Third, not a bad one as it creates promotions, is the hiring away of the winning teams' coaches again because other teams are incompetent in their hirings. WHo of us hasn't scratched our heads in amazement at some of the bone-headed hirings of other teams FO's? It's along list (JJ-Redskins-Raiders, Jets, etc) Last, maybe most important, the carrot is gone, the rabbit's been caught, motivation wanes, and SOME players ease up living off their SB win and then because of thast get hurt and out for the season</p>


so it comes down that you would rather have a few really good teams and an overall crappy league??....</p>


Not me.....I would love to see the Browns, Detroit, KC, etc finally get in the big show. </p>


You bring up good points where some teams dont have to "work as hard" because good players and coaches will fall into their laps at times. BUT&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;some of the smartest and most well respected owners created, voted for, and champion the FA, salary cap AND sharing the wealth. It protects the league as a whole. The NFL is a business and each team is a franchise. You have to have measures that insure each franchise can survive or the league will go to ****...</p>


</p> Thank you, as Bill Maar said, the NFL uses a socialist system, that is why it is the most successful sports league in the USA. Some people get fooled by what they hear on TV or talk radio.If it really was a socialist system, the Giants would take half my PSL and send it to a Jets fan wouldn't they? [:D]

LOL. spot on jomo!

But Bill Maher is such an objective credible resource with
expertise in all things, why would you not think this to be so jomo [;)]<p class="MsoNormal">
</p><p class="MsoNormal">Hey, I'm an Independent but it's probably best not
to start to generalize and correlate what the NFL (with its millionaire
players) does with current events. Such a discussion is well beyond the scope
of this board.</p><p class="MsoNormal">
</p>

Game Time, that is as I remember it as well. I believe our beloved Wellington Mara was a key champion in the implementation of the NFL market asset sharing policy. Individual franchises are still responsible and accountable to work hard regardless. Didn't the Packers benefit starting up? Not sure about this, but haven't they since put in place fan stock ownership in the team to also contribute to their ongoing solvency?

MikeIsaGiant
02-25-2012, 10:29 AM
Good thread OP

CAP is a huge factor and some of us guys were talking about this on the Ranger board about acquiring Nash and how if we acquire the superstar, our only chance of winning the Cup would be maybe this year or next year and after that we've pretty much lost our assets when trading for Nash.

Well, we need to factor in the cap, and how teams fail to repeat because of the cap. Teams in "Cap sports" should be in "win now" mode rather than building a huge dynasty in the future, because we know these days in the cap world it's almost impossible to keep hold of a dynasty (by dynasty I mean win a a few super bowls in a short period of time)