Not enough Elite QB’s to go around

[JoeKing]

I think he can be a big reason for it. He needs to stay healthy for the entirety of the season. When he was healthy, which was prior to the Pats game, he was one of the best QBs in the league. After that, he injured his calf and wasn't the same. If he can get back to how he played early in the season and our defence plays as they should, I think Dak can lead us to a Super Bowl. If we need a new QB, then there must be a capable replacement in the draft. The problem is that the QB to replace him did not exist in the past draft because the QBs were not close to Dak's level. I do think, unless some unforeseen circumstances should arise such as our entire oline getting hurt, that Dak shouldn't have any excuses as far as the offense goes going into this season. If the QB in the draft is available and able to be developed and we were unsuccessful, then sure, bring him in. The nice thing about having Dak is you don't have to start a rookie QB immediately. You can take a few seasons to develop the rookie.

You have fun thinking that, meanwhile I'm starting a new QB. Note I didn't say, rookie.

 

[kskboys]

I believe what you say to be true. No doubt. But don't think the salary cap is about parity, it's about saving money. We've all seen how the league was before the cap. Owners that made the most or wanted to win the most were good every year. All the cap does is lop off the top. The cap's goal is to make everyone 8-8. Teams that don't want to spend as much can compete because you're purposely hindering other teams from being great. I can only speak for myself, but that's not something I would strive for as a fan. As an owner, yeah.

Not really. There was no FA before the salary cap. The teams that won were the ones who put together the right talent and coaching. Back then, you just kept your players.

You're simply viewing the cap and its purposes through the wrong looking glass. It's a necessary evil.

 

[Flamma]

I agree, but I think its both. it allowed the smaller markets to compete and NFL teams over all saved money. I think they were watching the baseball league and seeing how just a few big market teams were dominating and the rest were more minor league and how baseball lost popularity and subsequently when baseball instituted their own form of salary control, they have regained popularity and teams from small markets are more competitive (btw, I don't think that's the only reason for surge in its popularity, but a factor).

btw, I haven't done a stat on records and variance of the record, which could show us the difference between pre and post cap era.....I mean detroit had an 0-16 season with the cap. I believe cleveland went 1-15. so teams do still screw up. one thing the cap did is to put more emphasis on better drafting.

Both the Lions and the Browns went 0-16. The Patriots went 16-0.

Yes, the small market teams can compete, I just don't like the way they enabled them. My little Honda can compete against a Corvette if you flatten all of their tires.

I'm not totally against a cap. Just not the hard cap we have now. I think if they gave a discount to teams that signed their own drafted players, that would allow for teams that drafted well to build and maintain better teams.

 

[Flamma]

Not really. There was no FA before the salary cap. The teams that won were the ones who put together the right talent and coaching. Back then, you just kept your players.

You're simply viewing the cap and its purposes through the wrong looking glass. It's a necessary evil.

Free agency changes the whole dynamic. You can't just keep your own players today.

 

[Diehardblues]

Not really. There was no FA before the salary cap. The teams that won were the ones who put together the right talent and coaching. Back then, you just kept your players.

You're simply viewing the cap and its purposes through the wrong looking glass. It's a necessary evil.

Actually we had limited Free Agency before the Salary Cap. Or we wouldn’t have landed players like John Dutton, Preston Pearson, Herb Adderly, Lance Alworth and Mike Ditka to name a few.

But you are absolutely correct that with Unlimited FA taking hold like after we acquired players like Sanders the league felt the Cap was needed to maintain the Parity in the league.

And it has . Although there has been some effects from such.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Well using your definition Aaron Rodgers must not be elite then……

he is able to get to the CCG consistently. and lets be honest, he has less to work with on offense than some other teams. Brady beat him, but Brady had 2 good TEs, 3 good WRs.....last year SF owned him. but again, he is able to knock at the door. with that said, he hasn't been to superbowl in 10+ years. so he would be 3rd or 4th on the list.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Both the Lions and the Browns went 0-16. The Patriots went 16-0.

Yes, the small market teams can compete, I just don't like the way they enabled them. My little Honda can compete against a Corvette if you flatten all of their tires.

I'm not totally against a cap. Just not the hard cap we have now. I think if they gave a discount to teams that signed their own drafted players, that would allow for teams that drafted well to build and maintain better teams.

I agree, I don't think there is a perfect answer. to use your analogy, if there are 30 cars in a race, 4 are corvette the rest honda, everyone is fighting for 5th place except for those two. that's not going to be an interesting race, unless you are fan of the corvettes

I think to generate loyalty and fan following, just like NBA and Baseball, the NFL should constitute an easier way of resigning your own drafted players.

 

[Flamma]

I agree, I don't think there is a perfect answer. to use your analogy, if there are 30 cars in a race, 4 are corvette the rest honda, everyone is fighting for 5th place except for those two. that's not going to be an interesting race, unless you are fan of the corvettes

I think to generate loyalty and fan following, just like NBA and Baseball, the NFL should constitute an easier way of resigning your own drafted players.

I agree. See the way you structured the analogy? The idea is to find a way to prop up the Hondas, not flatten the tires of the Vettes.

 

[kskboys]

Free agency changes the whole dynamic. You can't just keep your own players today.

Yup. And that brings about the necessity of a salary cap. They go hand in hand.

 

[kskboys]

Actually we had limited Free Agency before the Salary Cap. Or we wouldn’t have landed players like John Dutton, Preston Pearson, Herb Adderly, Lance Alworth and Mike Ditka to name a few.

But you are absolutely correct that with Unlimited FA taking hold like after we acquired players like Sanders the league felt the Cap was needed to maintain the Parity in the league.

And it has . Although there has been some effects from such.

Most people hate the salary cap because they have this weird view that it's about saving money. That may be a tiny part of it, but that's not what it's about. Basically, the owners know that unlimited spending will lead to a much lesser product and the teams w/ massive spending ability will use that to build super teams.

 

[kskboys]

Both the Lions and the Browns went 0-16. The Patriots went 16-0.

Yes, the small market teams can compete, I just don't like the way they enabled them. My little Honda can compete against a Corvette if you flatten all of their tires.

I'm not totally against a cap. Just not the hard cap we have now. I think if they gave a discount to teams that signed their own drafted players, that would allow for teams that drafted well to build and maintain better teams.

Not w/o a salary cap they cannot.

 

[Flamma]

Yup. And that brings about the necessity of a salary cap. They go hand in hand.

I see what you're saying. They could give a discount for signing your own drafted players. Would make things more interesting.

 

[Flamma]

Not w/o a salary cap they cannot.

Not sure what you're answering. The part about small market teams competing? I meant with the salary cap.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

he is able to get to the CCG consistently. and lets be honest, he has less to work with on offense than some other teams. Brady beat him, but Brady had 2 good TEs, 3 good WRs.....last year SF owned him. but again, he is able to knock at the door. with that said, he hasn't been to superbowl in 10+ years. so he would be 3rd or 4th on the list.

Wait. He’s been to the NFC G 4 times and lost 3 of them since 2008…..that’s consistent? Aaron has had the best receiver in the league with two good running backs….one of them lit us up for 4 touchdowns in a game…now Rodgers doesn’t have as much talent as others?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Wait. He’s been to the NFC G 4 times and lost 3 of them since 2008…..that’s consistent? Aaron has had the best receiver in the league with two good running backs….one of them lit us up for 4 touchdowns in a game…now Rodgers doesn’t have as much talent as others?

best reciever who was drafted in mid to low rounds. one reciever. history has shown a lot of the WRs who left GB never saw similar success. Brady had Evans, Godwin, Gronk, Brate and a great OL.

with that said, GB doesn't make it to the CG as consistently if they didn't have Rodgers..... they would be the cowboys perhaps, one and done. or not make it to playoffs. there is no denying he gives you a better chance.

no, rodgers doesn't have as much talent around him as others.....does he have as much talent as Tampa? before Hill was traded, did he have as much talent as KC? does he have a top 10 rookie ever like Chase? he has a lot to do with making those WRs successful... like I said, his recievers left and fell off the map. lets see how Adams does with Raiders. not saying Adams is not talented, but can adams reach 1500 yards?

plus GB defenses have been pretty average. so there is not really a dominating defense like SF. and the GB running game has been very average as well.

so yeah, Rodgers is the main reason GB is so competitive. there is no denying that.

 

[Diehardblues]

I see what you're saying. They could give a discount for signing your own drafted players. Would make things more interesting.

Drafting well consistently year after year is the key this era . Can’t afford to miss much because you must continue churning your roster unable to resign all of your key players.

In the old days you could have a few good drafts which would carry you for an era.

That’s one of the negative impacts of Salary Cap plus it doesn’t allow you to stockpile backups or veterans because of their minimum salaries. We used to have several players who could start for other teams.

While we still have cream at the top in Cap era there’s not as much under the hood and why injuries are so much more devastating this era. I call it a watered down talent pool once you get past this cream on the top. You basically just have to retool thru the draft and replace seasoned veterans for those Rookie contracts. And why each year drafts have never been more critical .

It’s how teams can quickly turn it around with 2 or3 stellar drafts. Cowboys this era have had too many misses not necessarily in first rounds which we’ve had a couple but middle to later picks. There for a few years all of those risk we took in 2nd round really cost us. Especially on defense.

 

[Diehardblues]

Not sure what you're answering. The part about small market teams competing? I meant with the salary cap.

Remember the NFL equal TV revenue was the benchmark of Parity for small market teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh for example to compete and build dynasties. It’s basically what separated the NFL from other major sports.

Once unlimited FA was implemented the league felt Salary Cap was best to maintain the Parity. Unfortunately while it was necessary it’s had some negative side effects in which teams must be managed differently.

 

[Flamma]

Remember the NFL equal TV revenue was the benchmark of Parity for small market teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh for example to compete and build dynasties. It’s basically what separated the NFL from other major sports.

Once unlimited FA was implemented the league felt Salary Cap was best to maintain the Parity. Unfortunately while it was necessary it’s had some negative side effects in which teams must be managed differently.

Of course it has negative side effects. The talent is spread out and watered down. We watched Peyton Manning break records and plow through the season in 2013 against pretty much the same defense every week. All watered down average defenses. You seen one, you seen them all. Until he played a good defense. The 49ers would have beaten the Broncos too. The Broncos were a paper tiger. Similar to the 2007 Patriots, but they were no paper tiger. Problem was, very few teams had a good enough defense to stand in their way.

What I don't like about the salary cap era is there is very little difference from one team to another. There is no identity or uniqueness to teams around the league. It's watered down. But hey, why change what works? If I have a product that makes a ton of money, I'm not going to spend anything to improve it.

 

[Diehardblues]

Of course it has negative side effects. The talent is spread out and watered down. We watched Peyton Manning break records and plow through the season in 2013 against pretty much the same defense every week. All watered down average defenses. You seen one, you seen them all. Until he played a good defense. The 49ers would have beaten the Broncos too. The Broncos were a paper tiger. Similar to the 2007 Patriots, but they were no paper tiger. Problem was, very few teams had a good enough defense to stand in their way.

What I don't like about the salary cap era is there is very little difference from one team to another. There is no identity or uniqueness to teams around the league. It's watered down. But hey, why change what works? If I have a product that makes a ton of money, I'm not going to spend anything to improve it.

The alternative is a handful of dominant teams with most of the league not able or not choosing to contend in smaller markets.

The sum is greater than any individual. They all have an equal opportunity. That’s keeps more fans across the country in all of these markets engaged.

And I’d argue there is still some teams which rise to the top. They aren’t able to stay there as long unless you hit on one of these HOF caliber QB’s. But I think we can say here is a difference between the top echelon and bottom dwelling teams .

 

[nobody]

Well let me say that I put "elite" in quotations because I think the title is a joke. I think the argument is a joke.
To show how much of a joke this argument is.......
Eli Manning has 2 SB rings. He beat Tom Brady TWICE to get those rings. Well...he beat a Tom Brady led team twice and a team who had one of the best coaches of all time coaching it. He made crucial and timely throws to do it. Never was favored to win a SB....took some temas with average seasons to the SB......yet, no one would EVER call him elite.

Justin Herbert and Josh Allen have done NOTHING in this league. Haven't won a SB or even appeared in one. But they are elite. Why? Because they "have a arm".

The elite talk is just ridiculous. Its a term talking heads created to fill air time on slow days.

One of those crucial and timely throws was a completely awful throw that got saved by an amazing against-the-helmet catch by Tyree. One in a million. Eli was very lucky at times.