But I agree that the NFL has done the best job of putting out a fair and balanced product. NHL has also come around. In the NBA, star-power is just too powerful. It's just what you get when you only have 5 men playing at once. MLB tried to do something by instituting revenue-sharing, but it's done the opposite, by letting poor teams with bad attendance become profitable by keeping payroll down.
If the FO wastes money on the wrong person, that dramatically impacts the construction of the remaining team and that gets directly to talent.
Stated differently, we are not going to win a SB without great talent and we are not going to have a great and balanced roster if we spend too much on one position or spend too much on a player who underperforms etc. It is a cool part of being an NFL fan and why the NFL off season is the best off season in professional sports.
However it will be worth it as I see him as being one of the QBs that will come out just like all the ones last year that made an automatic impact on their teams records turning them around from bad teams to playoffs teams in the span of one season
I'd go further. The issue is not whether a team is perennially at, or over, the cap, as some on this board seem to believe (and chastise Reese for).
The issue instead is how the cap is managed year-to-year, and how much value a given team gets out of its management of the cap.
For example, I think it's noteworthy that 4 of the last 6 Super Bowl winners (Giants, Steelers, Saints, Giants) entered this off season over the cap. And the Ravens, who enter the 2013 off season approx $12 mi under the cap, are about to become a team with a severe cap issue when they sign a new Flacco contract.
On the other hand, two examples of teams who do not manage their cap issues very well each year are #1 Jets ($23 mil over this year) and #2 Cowboys ($21 mil over).
Just like it is foolish to judge a player's overall worth for his performance on just 1 play, or even in just 1 game--good or bad--it is foolish to slam Reese for continuously juggling players to keep within the cap (just like every other GM is required to do) when his results overall have been not only good, but better than most.
This measure applies to certain "exceptions" as well, in reference to an individual compensation package. How many times over the past 3 years have we seen criticism on [I]this[/I] board of Eli's "too high" compensation? We see that a lot regarding Rolle's contract as well. There are some others who fit that mold for some fans, but these are 2 in particular that are likely judged by Reese % Co to be worth every penny of their contracts because of the market place today and because of everything aside from raw stats they bring to the Giants.
Has Reese made some mistakes? Of course. Every other GM has, too. But his good moves--in the draft and in FA--far surpass his "failures". And we have 2 Championships--and counting--during his 6 years as GM that confirm this conclusion. How many other teams' GMs can make that claim since the beginning of the salary cap era 20 years ago? Pats? Steelers? Broncos? And I'm not even sure if the Steelers and Pats had the same GM for all of their SB wins.
If the smaller organizations feel this is unfair..then find a way to make more money...find a way to fill your seats...but don't expect a handicap for your benefit...it's pathetic.