Mort: The NFL is a "bad league" right now (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

This morning Mort was on Mike & Mike and when asked about the labor situation, went into a diatribe about how removing the salary cap might not be a bad thing because the quality of play in the NFL wasn't very good anymore. I was shocked to hear him say this [particularly when it's the popularity of that very league which pays his bills].So I thought maybe I misunderstood his point, but in today's online chat...he made the comment again and was asked to clarify. He said...

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

Very bold statements from a guy who makes his living as an evangelist of the NFL and as someone that gets intel from every league office in the land. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[BlueOnion]

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

So Mort's fear is that owners, players and fans are unable to evolve?

 

[BigJim®]

Just comparing to other leagues (which I think you need to... you can't look at anything in a vacuum) I'd say the NFL is a good league. The officiating remains too unevenly applied and inconsistently called, but the management and quality of play strikes me as being great. I completely disagree that rookies are forced into action too early. In my opinion many rookies are shelved behind aging vets before they sniff the field.

 

[Jason Wood]

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

So Mort's fear is that owners, players and fans are unable to evolve?

I'm not sure what his bent is...he elaborate by throwing out how the Steelers dominated the 70s without being a big market team and how the Marlins won two WS titles in a small market. Lord help us if the NFL starts taking cues from major league baseball, and the business conditions of the 70s in the NFL are so vastly different than today when money has gotten enormous; his examples are bordering on ridiculous.

 

[Workhorse]

I'd love to hear Mort elaborate on "quality of play".

Are we talking about fundamentals like RBs reading holes, blocking and tackling, coverage, QB play? I mean, what is he referring to? Because you could make the case that certain parts of the game are worse and other parts are better than ever.

 

[Exile]

I saw this in his chat today and was surprised by his comments. To me, the NFL is just as enjoyable today as it has been since I started watching in 1976. As a counter example, the same cannot be said of the NBA (IMO).

 

[Jason Wood]

I saw this in his chat today and was surprised by his comments. To me, the NFL is just as enjoyable today as it has been since I started watching in 1976. As a counter example, the same cannot be said of the NBA (IMO).

From a viewership perspective, the NFL has grown [and continues to grow] by leaps and bounds whereas NHL, NBA and MLB have suffered declines. Only Nascar has really shown marked growth among American TV viewers. And commensurate with the NFL's growth has been unprecedented revenues...both in terms of TV contracts and gate/merchandising. It's as close to a perfect sports league [financially] as one can ask for; and ANY alterations to that model would be both risky and likely unwise.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi Jason,

I took Mort's comments to mean more that he preferred a less even distribution of the talent. With the way it is now, it's tough to put together a really great team.

The talent pool would be the same with our without a cap. It's just that with a cap, it's more evenly distributed. That makes for lots of good teams but few great and few bad teams.

I took him to be saying he liked it where there were more great teams. Of course, the part he's not mentioning is that with the pool staying constant, that means there are more bad teams too.

I too was a little surprised to hear him say it. But I think I hear what he's saying.

I definitely prefer the way it is now. But as long as they can keep the strike word out of the equation, I can see what he's saying and could live with a less evenly distributed pool I guess.

I still love it the way it is now though.

J

 

[BlueOnion]

I'm not sure what his bent is...he elaborate by throwing out how the Steelers dominated the 70s without being a big market team and how the Marlins won two WS titles in a small market. Lord help us if the NFL starts taking cues from major league baseball, and the business conditions of the 70s in the NFL are so vastly different than today when money has gotten enormous; his examples are bordering on ridiculous.

This confusses me. Mort is trying to compare the Steelers in the 70s that operated with no cap and no Free Agency and then trying to imply the Steelers could have the same success in 2010 with no salary cap and free agency.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I saw this in his chat today and was surprised by his comments.  To me, the NFL is just as enjoyable today as it has been since I started watching in 1976.  As a counter example, the same cannot be said of the NBA (IMO).

From a viewership perspective, the NFL has grown [and continues to grow] by leaps and bounds whereas NHL, NBA and MLB have suffered declines. Only Nascar has really shown marked growth among American TV viewers. And commensurate with the NFL's growth has been unprecedented revenues...both in terms of TV contracts and gate/merchandising. It's as close to a perfect sports league [financially] as one can ask for; and ANY alterations to that model would be both risky and likely unwise.

Excellent point, Woodrow.And I'll ask the question: What is the biggest change Nascar has made over the years?

Parity.

There are a few teams that aren't really competitive but the reality is now that any of 15 cars can win any Sunday. Years ago, you had to be a Dale Earnhardt fan to have a winner. It was Richard Petty before him. Everyone else was an also ran.

Today, Nascar can market a entire group of drivers to tons of different demographics. You have guys like Gordon to the professionals, Earnhardt Jr. to the younger guys, Carl Edwards shirtless on the cover of ESPN mag to the women and more. And all have a great shot at winning now.

I think this move to parity and the explosion of popularity are definitely tied together.

J

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I couldn't possibly agree less. I think the quality of play is better than ever.

The fact that there are probably 4-5 active RBs who could easily end up in the all-time top 10, probably 4-5 receivers with a shot at getting into the top-10 all-time, probably 5-6 future Hall of fame QBs playing, and defenses who are bigger and faster than ever before, and I have no idea how he could make those comments. The parity is EVERYTHING in the NFL - fans continue to show up in droves because they know any team can turn their fortunes around in a hurry.

If the NFL loses the cap, the popularity of the league will be in grave danger. Does anyone really want to go back to the days of watching the Steelers, Cowboys, or 49ers win 3-4 Super Bowls in 5 years? Hell, there's enough backlash against the Patriots for their remarkable run in this era to illustrate that 20 years of dynastic teams would not be well-received.

Personally, I like the 30-27 Super Bowls a lot better than the 55-10 ones. The Super Bowl is actually a football game again, rather than just an "event", no matter how much TV and pop culture wants to change that.

 

[BlueOnion]

I took him to be saying he liked it where there were more great teams. Of course, the part he's not mentioning is that with the pool staying constant, that means there are more bad teams too.

I would be interested in hearing if and why Mort considers the Patriots a great team.I never understood these types of statements.

 

[BigJim®]

Hi Jason,

I took Mort's comments to mean more that he preferred a less even distribution of the talent. With the way it is now, it's tough to put together a really great team.

The talent pool would be the same with our without a cap. It's just that with a cap, it's more evenly distributed. That makes for lots of good teams but few great and few bad teams.

I took him to be saying he liked it where there were more great teams. Of course, the part he's not mentioning is that with the pool staying constant, that means there are more bad teams too.

I too was a little surprised to hear him say it. But I think I hear what he's saying.

I definitely prefer the way it is now. But as long as they can keep the strike word out of the equation, I can see what he's saying and could live with a less evenly distributed pool I guess.

I still love it the way it is now though.

J

Well, if this was his point it strikes me as peculiar timing for such an opinion. Just 6 short weeks ago the same team had won a Superbowl in 3 of the prior 4 years and was still alive in this year's playoffs. How is that trend supportive of a parity league being unable to generate lasting/quality teams?

 

[GroveDiesel]

What's really strange to me is his statement of "perception of parity."

But isn't that largely true? The Bengals turned things around pretty quickly as did the Rams before them. The Rams went from a nothing to Super Bowl winners. The Eagles are a team that turned things around pretty quickly too with the addition of McNabb. The Patriots weren't a total bottom feeder but they weren't an elite team either when they won their first SB in this run of theirs.

So his inference that parity doesn't exist in the NFL and that teams can't really turn it around quickly just seems false.

 

[Orange Crush]

I think Mort is right when it comes to young quarterbacks. They are thrown to the wolves far too soon and then oftentimes discarded before their full potential is reached.

But his other objections are ridiculous. The NFL is incredibly popular right now because of the free agency and cap structure which makes it possible for a team to turn around their franchise in a very short amount of time. The Steelers were successful as a small market team because they didn't have to pay their players exorbitant salaries. There was no free agency that required them to pay a market price. They had good drafts, and then kept those players forever. I can't believe he would want the NFL to become more like MLB with small market teams forced out of competitiveness.

 

[BlueOnion]

I took Mort's comments as him being discouraged that young players are expected to produce immediately now. The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately. Often times that means players are in over their heads thus diluting the product on the field. This trickles down to coaches being fired, etc.

Thanks FF, this is a far more logical position for Mort to have and I believe there is some validitity to this.The truth is, players 1, 2 or 3 years experience are far more cheaper (cap wise) than veterans. It is just not cost effective for teams to bring in an aging veteran; Gary Plummer in San Francisco, Matt Millen and Earnest Byner in Washington and so on and so on.

Sure the Patriots were great, but they have maintained their greatness by filling their roster with younger players and releasing veterans.

I really don't have a problem with this, but it is a far more legit argument if this is what Mort's statements are based on.

 

[LAUNCH]

The talent pool would be the same with our without a cap. It's just that with a cap, it's more evenly distributed. That makes for lots of good teams but few great and few bad teams.

The talent pool would be different at the bottom/middle as guys who are losing jobs and out of the league now, because they count against the cap more, wouldn't be.Mort is just wrong on this. The best way for the NFL to continue is a capitalist outer shell with a socialist inner shell. Teams should be able to make whatever money they can, but the product is the best when both players and management have to fight and work to make the team successful within a salary cap.

LAUNCH

 

[Ozymandias]

I think he's wrong. But the NFL is about to make the huge mistake of doing what he would like them to do.

In a few years, the NFL will be as bad as MLB and the NBA.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think he's wrong. But the NFL is about to make the huge mistake of doing what he would like them to do.

In a few years, the NFL will be as bad as MLB and the NBA.

Because the NFL understands that. More importantly, the NFLPA is virtually powerless...the NFL called their bluff with replacement players in the past and the union collapsed. NFL owners won't hesitate to do the same again.More likely, there is a bit of grandstanding going on b/c Upshaw is already labeled as a league shill by many; so he walks away from the table, makes a few stirring statements, and then shows up at the 11th hour to sign on the dotted line just like a good soldier.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I took Mort's comments as him being discouraged that young players are expected to produce immediately now.  The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately.  Often times that means players are in over their heads thus diluting the product on the field.  This trickles down to coaches being fired, etc.

Thanks FF, this is a far more logical position for Mort to have and I believe there is some validitity to this.The truth is, players 1, 2 or 3 years experience are far more cheaper (cap wise) than veterans. It is just not cost effective for teams to bring in an aging veteran; Gary Plummer in San Francisco, Matt Millen and Earnest Byner in Washington and so on and so on.

Sure the Patriots were great, but they have maintained their greatness by filling their roster with younger players and releasing veterans.

I really don't have a problem with this, but it is a far more legit argument if this is what Mort's statements are based on.

Hi FF,Can you unpack what you mean here a little more?

The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately.

Why is that? What about the cap forces young players to produce more quickly?J

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Still the best league going. By Far!

They will get this deal done.

Upshaw is an owners cronie anyway.

 

[B-Deep]

I think he's wrong. But the NFL is about to make the huge mistake of doing what he would like them to do.

In a few years, the NFL will be as bad as MLB and the NBA.

Because the NFL understands that. More importantly, the NFLPA is virtually powerless...the NFL called their bluff with replacement players in the past and the union collapsed. NFL owners won't hesitate to do the same again.More likely, there is a bit of grandstanding going on b/c Upshaw is already labeled as a league shill by many; so he walks away from the table, makes a few stirring statements, and then shows up at the 11th hour to sign on the dotted line just like a good soldier.

I hope so! But man Upshaw has to REALLY hate that this is the oppinion of him.

 

[Couch Potato]

My expert opinion is that Mort woke up in a bad mood this morning.

By the way, I live 35 miles east of San Francisco, and we've just had 2 small earthquakes out here in the last 1/2 hour. If it's a precursor to the big one and I end up in the ocean, it's been nice knowing you!

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The main problem I have with the NFL right now is that the players are evolving into such amazing physical specimens - making the play faster and harder-hitting - that we're having more injuries, especially to skill players. More injuries results in more backups and marginal players on the field (in high profile positions), and there you have part of your quality of play problems.

On the flipside, we are seeing players with ability that the 70s/80s NFL could have never dreamed possible. This makes a more entertaining product, and yields more of what we all love the most - THE GREAT INDIVIDUAL PLAY. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch a perfectly executed running play, but the individual plays that transcend the game are really the draw, and why the marquee players are so important.

Ah, but I can counter my own counter-argument - players are so talented and physically gifted now that they get by on talent and ignore the fundamentals. I HATE seeing big plays because of poor tackling, and the NFL is rife with it right now.

I do agree with mort on the itchy trigger finger with coach hirings and firings, which generally makes play sloppier. I hate seeing a great play only to notice that it was actually caused by a lapse by another player, and not tremendous individual ability or creativity. I think that if teams stuck to philosophies through multiple coaches and had more continuity overall, we'd see less horrible lapses in coverage and keystone kops play out there.

 

[SammyJankis]

Listening to Sports talk radio in Phoenix and you'll hear Bob Kemp make this point over and over and over. He likes to go on about how there are no great teams and not very many good ones.

Are teams better or worse than they were 30 years ago? Like "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?" the answer of course is "the world may never know". Some would argue that today's players are bigger and stronger and have more advanced methods to get them perpared. Others would argue with fewer teams, no free agency and no revenue sharing that the teams of old would destroy modern teams. But short of a PS2 simulation, who knows?

But we're not really talking about "good" or "bad" teams here. What we're really talking about is comparing the top NFL talent to the average team. (Kind of like VBD) The NFL has moved more and more towards parity. Its much harder to maintain a dynasty. Often it really is a case of "any given Sunday" where one team can beat another.

I guess its just a matter of taste. Me? I like parity. I hate the economics of baseball. I hate that Yankees management can go out and make every mistake in the book and simply erase those with their checkbook. I hate that they can afford to pay more to one player in a year than some teams pay their entire payroll. In baseball, the outcomes are much more pre-determined ala pro wrestling. Go pick up any 2005 NFL preview magainze and you'll find zero "Steeler vs. Seahawks" super bowl predictions and I love that about the NFL.

 

[Couch Potato]

Listening to Sports talk radio in Phoenix and you'll hear Bob Kemp make this point over and over and over. He likes to go on about how there are no great teams and not very many good ones.

Is that irritating jerk still around? I used to listen to him when he had a late night national radio talk show back in the late 80s and early 90s, and he was on that rant constantly. Some things never change. If he were on the air in the 50s or 60s or 70s, he would still have been doing the same whine. I imagine he's still disgustingly full of himself and demeaning to his callers too. What a hateful guy.

 

[Jason Wood]

I took Mort's comments as him being discouraged that young players are expected to produce immediately now.  The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately.  Often times that means players are in over their heads thus diluting the product on the field.  This trickles down to coaches being fired, etc.

Thanks FF, this is a far more logical position for Mort to have and I believe there is some validitity to this.The truth is, players 1, 2 or 3 years experience are far more cheaper (cap wise) than veterans. It is just not cost effective for teams to bring in an aging veteran; Gary Plummer in San Francisco, Matt Millen and Earnest Byner in Washington and so on and so on.

Sure the Patriots were great, but they have maintained their greatness by filling their roster with younger players and releasing veterans.

I really don't have a problem with this, but it is a far more legit argument if this is what Mort's statements are based on.

Hi FF,Can you unpack what you mean here a little more?

The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately.

Why is that? What about the cap forces young players to produce more quickly?J

Hey Joe,I don't want to speak for FF but I happen to agree with him and will tell you why I think his statement rings true. Years ago, when there was no cap or free agency, teams could afford to leave collegiate players on the bench for years at a time, as they learned the system and worked their way into the lineup. As the cap/free agency have evolved, teams:

A) Have to get on-field production from younger guys in order to justify their large signing bonuses [and because they lose them in free agency in a few years]

B) Must constantly replenish the roster with younger, lower salaried players [and aging veterans playing at a discount] because the core guys in their prime simply can't all be kept thanks to the cap

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

 

[BlueOnion]

I don't want to speak for FF but I happen to agree with him and will tell you why I think his statement rings true. Years ago, when there was no cap or free agency, teams could afford to leave collegiate players on the bench for years at a time, as they learned the system and worked their way into the lineup. As the cap/free agency have evolved, teams:

A) Have to get on-field production from younger guys in order to justify their large signing bonuses [and because they lose them in free agency in a few years]

B) Must constantly replenish the roster with younger, lower salaried players [and aging veterans playing at a discount] because the core guys in their prime simply can't all be kept thanks to the cap

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

Good call Wood. And in simple accounting terms;signing a rookie for the minimum is about 300,000 a year.

signing an 8 year vet for the minumum is about 800,000 a year.

* I don't recall what these numbers are exactly.

If you need 8 backup\special teamers, the salary cap cost is far more friendly if a team signs 8 rookies; about 4 million salary cap dollars cheaper.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hey Joe,

I don't want to speak for FF but I happen to agree with him and will tell you why I think his statement rings true. Years ago, when there was no cap or free agency, teams could afford to leave collegiate players on the bench for years at a time, as they learned the system and worked their way into the lineup. As the cap/free agency have evolved, teams:

A) Have to get on-field production from younger guys in order to justify their large signing bonuses [and because they lose them in free agency in a few years]

B) Must constantly replenish the roster with younger, lower salaried players [and aging veterans playing at a discount] because the core guys in their prime simply can't all be kept thanks to the cap

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

Thanks Jason.I don't disagree about the young guys but isn't the push for the younger guys to contribute before they become free agents more of a free agency issue?

And on the QB thing, you're right for sure as that's a fact the young guys are starting sooner. But I wonder if that's more of a follow the leader (Manning) thing as opposed to be driven by the cap. I mean Matt Leinart is going to sign for a ton of cash with or without a cap. I think whoever signs him will be under pressure to play him regardless. Do you think a cap really increases that?

(And yeah, I could take either side of this discussion.... )

J

 

[Jason Wood]

Hey Joe,

I don't want to speak for FF but I happen to agree with him and will tell you why I think his statement rings true. Years ago, when there was no cap or free agency, teams could afford to leave collegiate players on the bench for years at a time, as they learned the system and worked their way into the lineup. As the cap/free agency have evolved, teams:

A) Have to get on-field production from younger guys in order to justify their large signing bonuses [and because they lose them in free agency in a few years]

B) Must constantly replenish the roster with younger, lower salaried players [and aging veterans playing at a discount] because the core guys in their prime simply can't all be kept thanks to the cap

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

Thanks Jason.I don't disagree about the young guys but isn't the push for the younger guys to contribute before they become free agents more of a free agency issue?

And on the QB thing, you're right for sure as that's a fact the young guys are starting sooner. But I wonder if that's more of a follow the leader (Manning) thing as opposed to be driven by the cap. I mean Matt Leinart is going to sign for a ton of cash with or without a cap. I think whoever signs him will be under pressure to play him regardless. Do you think a cap really increases that?

(And yeah, I could take either side of this discussion.... )

J

Great question Joe and, while only speculation, I think it would depend on the financial status of the team in question.For example...the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles [or any team with a new stadium and big revenues coming in] could easily afford to pay Leinart big $$$ and sit him for a few years. But teams like New Orleans or Minnesota most likely would/could not.

Where it would/will get really stupid is in free agency though. Teams with money to burn [particularly free cash flow like Danny Snyder] would outbid everyone for all the top tier free agents and try to stockpile. If this was an uncapped year you could easily see Snyder buy Hutchinson, Bentley, trade for Abraham, and sign TO without a problem.

And longer-term this would invite some of the teams to take riskier financial bets to stay competitive. That's the real problem/worry. Teams would consider taking on more debt in order to stay in the bidding for guys; and that could lead to a major deterioration in the financial standing of the league.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I took Mort's comments as him being discouraged that young players are expected to produce immediately now. The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately. Often times that means players are in over their heads thus diluting the product on the field. This trickles down to coaches being fired, etc.

Thanks FF, this is a far more logical position for Mort to have and I believe there is some validitity to this.The truth is, players 1, 2 or 3 years experience are far more cheaper (cap wise) than veterans. It is just not cost effective for teams to bring in an aging veteran; Gary Plummer in San Francisco, Matt Millen and Earnest Byner in Washington and so on and so on.

Sure the Patriots were great, but they have maintained their greatness by filling their roster with younger players and releasing veterans.

I really don't have a problem with this, but it is a far more legit argument if this is what Mort's statements are based on.

Hi FF,Can you unpack what you mean here a little more?

The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately.

Why is that? What about the cap forces young players to produce more quickly?J

I think the two posts you quote are more on Mort's point than much of the conversation, although it's all part of the story, and a good conversation. I disagree with the comment that the NFL is not a good league. It's a great league, and Wood pointed out how successful it is nicely. At the combine Herm Edwards said very similar things as Mort. He just wasn't so negative. He was highlighting the ever growing importance of the draft. He said the way it is now, if you draft a player, he's pretty much going to make the team. And of the 7 or so you draft, 3 or 4 have to contribute as rookies, and a couple of them have to be very good, or free agency and the cap will really make things difficult. So why?

Very simplified. Quality talent is leaving via free agency and the cap is making it very difficult to keep that talent around. Both free agency and the cap also make it very difficult to hold on to good talent backing up the the players who are leaving. So you have to find that in the draft. Rookies are thrown to the wolves much sooner than they used to be. Your backups are often 6th and 7th rounders kept around to keep under the cap. You need to address needs in the draft more than best available player now, because those backups aren't as good as the 1st day rookies available.

 

[Orange Crush]

I don't want to speak for FF but I happen to agree with him and will tell you why I think his statement rings true. Years ago, when there was no cap or free agency, teams could afford to leave collegiate players on the bench for years at a time, as they learned the system and worked their way into the lineup. As the cap/free agency have evolved, teams:

A) Have to get on-field production from younger guys in order to justify their large signing bonuses [and because they lose them in free agency in a few years]

B) Must constantly replenish the roster with younger, lower salaried players [and aging veterans playing at a discount] because the core guys in their prime simply can't all be kept thanks to the cap

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

Good call Wood. And in simple accounting terms;signing a rookie for the minimum is about 300,000 a year.

signing an 8 year vet for the minumum is about 800,000 a year.

* I don't recall what these numbers are exactly.

If you need 8 backup\special teamers, the salary cap cost is far more friendly if a team signs 8 rookies; about 4 million salary cap dollars cheaper.

Actually, teams get an exemption for veterans that sign a league minimum contract (with no more than a $10K signing bonus). All such players count $450K against the cap. That's a major reason why the Patriots have been such an excellent team recently. They've been one of the major users of this, signing veteran guys for depth like Artrell Hawkins, Chad Scott, etc.

 

[cstu]

Hi Jason,

I took Mort's comments to mean more that he preferred a less even distribution of the talent. With the way it is now, it's tough to put together a really great team.

The talent pool would be the same with our without a cap. It's just that with a cap, it's more evenly distributed. That makes for lots of good teams but few great and few bad teams.

I took him to be saying he liked it where there were more great teams. Of course, the part he's not mentioning is that with the pool staying constant, that means there are more bad teams too.

I too was a little surprised to hear him say it. But I think I hear what he's saying.

I definitely prefer the way it is now. But as long as they can keep the strike word out of the equation, I can see what he's saying and could live with a less evenly distributed pool I guess.

I still love it the way it is now though.

J

He's way off on this one. Just because teams can't build juggernauts and keep them together doesn't mean the level of play has diminished. You could argue that the teams in the playoffs aren't as good overall as ones before free agency and the salary cap, but the "overall" level of play in the entire league is the best it ever has been.

 

[scooper]

I think Mort's right. There are no great teams anymore. But I think he's wrong in saying that's a bad thing.

There are good teams and I think the benefit for the goes beyong parity because these good teams are not cookie cutters of one another. Without a cap, the few good teams would all have great QB's elite WR's a deep O-line, etc. across the board. Under the current system, a team has to work to their strengths. The Steelers made a great run this year on the backs of an aggressive defense and a solid-if not star studded running game. The Colts chose a more over-the-top route.

The closest we've come to a balanced "great" team is the Pats, who at times have played great defense, run the ball well and have benefited from a diamond in the rough possible HOF QB. But even they have lacked star power at certain positions throughout their run, especially at the non-QB offensive skill positions. They won 2/3 without a RB like Dillon and none of their solid WR's are really great.

This variance of styles makes the league interesting. It also makes for interesting off seasons as the draft and free agency are scrutinized more than ever before as teams really have to be careful not to waste their precious few resources. Why blow your wad on a great rb, if you don't have the line to spring him? If you are a shut down corner away from a top 3 defense, do you spend that money or pick on the next great QB, or get that corner and win in Ravens fashion?

I, for one, like not just the parity, but also the variety that today's NFL offers.

 

[Z-Dog]

I don't know about what Mort's saying.

Are the best teams not as good as some great teams from the past? I don't know about that. The Patriots are a dynasty that I would be comfortable comparing to the Steelers of the 70s, the Niners of the 80s, or the Cowboys of the 90s. I also see plenty of small-market teams being regularly competitive. Carolina, Green Bay, Tennessee, St. Louis, and Tampa have all been to superbowls in the salary cap era. Jacksonville, Kansas City, and Minnesota have all been to multiple playoffs. I don't know what the whole small-market team issue is.

Younger players are playing more than older players. The league tweaked the salary cap to help keep veterans on the roster. Has quality of play declined? I don't think so. I think that the salary cap puts a lot more pressure on coaches, but the truth is that in general, that's been the trend in the NFL ever since Lawrence Taylor exposed the vulnerability of the two-back passing offense. Coaches run more plays out of more packages on both offense and defense than ever before. Players are becoming more specialized. We now have the nickel corner, the situational pass-rusher, the two-down DT, a host of RBBCs (short-yardage, change-of-pace, scatback, etc.), blocking TEs and receiving TEs, slot WRs, and so forth. Highly specialized roles means that you can get younger players in the mix b/c they only need to learn one thing.

I'm most concerned about officiating. If what happened in the Superbowl is the standard for NFL officiating, I will have to give up watching it, just as I gave up watching the NBA once Michael Jordan's personal zone of 'I got hit' was bequeathed to Shaq.

 

[Sinrman]

I would view a capless NFL like MLB. You'll eventually have a few teams, big market ones, that spend, spend, spend and horde the top players. We will see the same teams in the playoffs, with maybe a couple each year able to squeak in. Do you not think someone like Snyder or Jones going into full-on George Steinbrenner mode? As Steinbrenner once said, "I'll keep doing it until they stop me."

 

[Mike]

Hi Jason,

I took Mort's comments to mean more that he preferred a less even distribution of the talent. With the way it is now, it's tough to put together a really great team.

The talent pool would be the same with our without a cap. It's just that with a cap, it's more evenly distributed. That makes for lots of good teams but few great and few bad teams.

I took him to be saying he liked it where there were more great teams. Of course, the part he's not mentioning is that with the pool staying constant, that means there are more bad teams too.

I too was a little surprised to hear him say it. But I think I hear what he's saying.

I definitely prefer the way it is now. But as long as they can keep the strike word out of the equation, I can see what he's saying and could live with a less evenly distributed pool I guess.

I still love it the way it is now though.

J

I agree with this interpretation Joe. One thing I don't agree on... I didn't LOVE the most recent conference championships and Super Bowl. That was some lousy football. I got to thinking watching the Super Bowl, that if these are the two best teams in football facing off, it really wasn't a good football year. This is likely one of the things driving Mort's comments.

 

[Workhorse]

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

I would argue that QB play as a whole, is better now than it has ever been. Let's look at the top 10 in adjusted yards per pass, as just one example:

2005:

B Roethlisberger 8.02

P Manning 7.90

T Green 7.36

M Hasselbeck 7.33

C Palmer 7.10

J Plummer 7.09

M Bulger 7.08

T Brady 7.06

B Leftwich 6.78

J Delhomme 6.76

1995:

J Harbaugh 8.03

B Favre 7.38

T Aikman 7.29

S Mitchell 7.06

E Kramer 7.05

J George 6.98

N O'Donnell 6.79

D Marino 6.71

J Elway 6.64

V Testaverde 6.64

1985:

K O'Brien 7.74

B Esiason 7.36

D Fouts 7.00

B Kenney 6.81

J Montana 6.76

J McMahon 6.54

P Simms 6.36

D Marino 6.16

J Schroeder 6.14

D Brock 6.12

1975:

K Anderson 7.65

B Jones 6.69

T Bradshaw 6.40

F Tarkenton 6.26

R Staubach 6.08

J Ferguson 5.95

J Harris 5.66

B Kilmer 5.64

J Hart 5.34

C Morton 4.82

I think QB play has been trending UPWARD, even with younger QBs at the helm.

 

[Koya]

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

So Mort's fear is that owners, players and fans are unable to evolve?

I'm not sure what his bent is...he elaborate by throwing out how the Steelers dominated the 70s without being a big market team and how the Marlins won two WS titles in a small market. Lord help us if the NFL starts taking cues from major league baseball, and the business conditions of the 70s in the NFL are so vastly different than today when money has gotten enormous; his examples are bordering on ridiculous.

I think his point is that the league promotes mediocrity over greatness. Put together an ok team, then get a little lucky and have an above average year and hope for some things to fall in place in win a Super Bowl.Back in the 70s-90's, it was rare that a team could win a Super Bowl without being a GREAT team. There was not parity, but you had 5 or so good to great teams every year, who played the game so much better than ANY team does nowadays because of the landscape of the league under the current cap system.

When you melt everything down to the lowest common denominator, you take away a lot of the greatness that while not as competitively balanced, gives more reason to watch because you are witnessing a great team. Not the better of a bunch of average teams, which is what we have today.

 

[Mike]

Although the Yankees are the common example of overspending and "ruining" the league, we should note excessive spending is not always a guarantee of success. The Yankees themselves have been guaranteed a playoff spot in recent years but have not really met their expectations. Another good example is the NY Rangers.

I think Leinhart or other rookies playing sooner out of the gate is a direct result of the cap. Yes, Leinhart could be paid the same with or without a cap, but then the cap restricts the team from spending more on a veteran QB for longer even though it might be prudent to the benefit of the on-field product (short to medium term).

Can anyone form an opinion as to whether players are perceived to be more or less mistake prone than in the past? I think it is a fair guess that using more young guys, sooner, results in more mental mistakes and ultimately sloppier football.

 

[Koya]

I couldn't possibly agree less. I think the quality of play is better than ever.

The fact that there are probably 4-5 active RBs who could easily end up in the all-time top 10, probably 4-5 receivers with a shot at getting into the top-10 all-time, probably 5-6 future Hall of fame QBs playing, and defenses who are bigger and faster than ever before, and I have no idea how he could make those comments. The parity is EVERYTHING in the NFL - fans continue to show up in droves because they know any team can turn their fortunes around in a hurry.

If the NFL loses the cap, the popularity of the league will be in grave danger. Does anyone really want to go back to the days of watching the Steelers, Cowboys, or 49ers win 3-4 Super Bowls in 5 years? Hell, there's enough backlash against the Patriots for their remarkable run in this era to illustrate that 20 years of dynastic teams would not be well-received.

Personally, I like the 30-27 Super Bowls a lot better than the 55-10 ones. The Super Bowl is actually a football game again, rather than just an "event", no matter how much TV and pop culture wants to change that.

You may still have great individual players. I personally find the lack of great teams a concern... and over time I think that could become an issue. Right now, without looking too far in the future, things are great - but at what point do we get a little bored with the watered down "champion" that couldnt hold a torch to the great teams of the past.

 

[Koya]

I took Mort's comments as him being discouraged that young players are expected to produce immediately now.  The salary cap forces teams to find players in the draft that can contribute immediately.  Often times that means players are in over their heads thus diluting the product on the field.  This trickles down to coaches being fired, etc.

Thanks FF, this is a far more logical position for Mort to have and I believe there is some validitity to this.The truth is, players 1, 2 or 3 years experience are far more cheaper (cap wise) than veterans. It is just not cost effective for teams to bring in an aging veteran; Gary Plummer in San Francisco, Matt Millen and Earnest Byner in Washington and so on and so on.

Sure the Patriots were great, but they have maintained their greatness by filling their roster with younger players and releasing veterans.

I really don't have a problem with this, but it is a far more legit argument if this is what Mort's statements are based on.

The pats were only great in a sea of mediocrity. They'd be creamed by the truely "great" teams of yesteryear.For those who have played in online simulation leagues, the Pats had a HUGE advantage. While everyone had the same constraints as far as players, the Pats had such an advantage in their team management/coaching, that they took about the same talent (maybe a bit more, and certainly a great young QB) and matched up with teams who didnt have the coaching/management to win 3 of 4.

But again, they are only great in light of a bunch of average teams. In the 80's/90's that team might have made one superbowl.

Maybe.

Some years, if not most, they wouldnt be a top 3 team in the league.

 

[Koya]

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

I would argue that QB play as a whole, is better now than it has ever been. Let's look at the top 10 in adjusted yards per pass, as just one example:

2005:

B Roethlisberger 8.02

P Manning 7.90

T Green 7.36

M Hasselbeck 7.33

C Palmer 7.10

J Plummer 7.09

M Bulger 7.08

T Brady 7.06

B Leftwich 6.78

J Delhomme 6.76

1995:

J Harbaugh 8.03

B Favre 7.38

T Aikman 7.29

S Mitchell 7.06

E Kramer 7.05

J George 6.98

N O'Donnell 6.79

D Marino 6.71

J Elway 6.64

V Testaverde 6.64

1985:

K O'Brien 7.74

B Esiason 7.36

D Fouts 7.00

B Kenney 6.81

J Montana 6.76

J McMahon 6.54

P Simms 6.36

D Marino 6.16

J Schroeder 6.14

D Brock 6.12

1975:

K Anderson 7.65

B Jones 6.69

T Bradshaw 6.40

F Tarkenton 6.26

R Staubach 6.08

J Ferguson 5.95

J Harris 5.66

B Kilmer 5.64

J Hart 5.34

C Morton 4.82

I think QB play has been trending UPWARD, even with younger QBs at the helm.

Different game. Different rules. Different landcape. These stats are nearly useless without proper context.

 

[Workhorse]

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

So Mort's fear is that owners, players and fans are unable to evolve?

I'm not sure what his bent is...he elaborate by throwing out how the Steelers dominated the 70s without being a big market team and how the Marlins won two WS titles in a small market. Lord help us if the NFL starts taking cues from major league baseball, and the business conditions of the 70s in the NFL are so vastly different than today when money has gotten enormous; his examples are bordering on ridiculous.

I think his point is that the league promotes mediocrity over greatness. Put together an ok team, then get a little lucky and have an above average year and hope for some things to fall in place in win a Super Bowl.Back in the 70s-90's, it was rare that a team could win a Super Bowl without being a GREAT team. There was not parity, but you had 5 or so good to great teams every year, who played the game so much better than ANY team does nowadays because of the landscape of the league under the current cap system.

When you melt everything down to the lowest common denominator, you take away a lot of the greatness that while not as competitively balanced, gives more reason to watch because you are witnessing a great team. Not the better of a bunch of average teams, which is what we have today.

I don't buy this argument at all.The one thing that stands out from the "glory days" of the NFL that guys like Mort describe is that there were "great" teams then. Who's to say? The Steelers played in an era when it was feast or famine. You were either a great team like Pitt, Dallas and the Raiders, or you were TERRIBLE like the Bucs, Bills or Seahawks.

What really constitutes a "great" team? The Raiders were a very successful franchise for well over a decade, but they were pretty mediocre defensively. In a lot of ways, they were the Indianapolis Colts of their time. They could put up a bunch of points but were often ranked outside of the top 10 defensively. And they still won two Super Bowls in 5 years.

I think a lot of this is "good ole days" nostalgia BS.

 

[Hoh]

I'd side with Mort if all we were talking about it tackling. IMHO, there is so much emphasis on smacking the ball out of the RB's/WR's hands that tackling is secondary

 

[Workhorse]

We've really seen this change most predominantly at the QB position. Prior to free agency and the cap, it was the exception, not the rule for a QB to see significant playing time in his first two or three seasons. Now QBs, particularly those drafted high, are forced on the field almost immediately because financially it's impossible not to utilize these guys who take up big chunks of the cap. They're, in many cases, not ready [or not as ready as they would've been with the luxury of apprenticing for two or three seasons].

I would argue that QB play as a whole, is better now than it has ever been. Let's look at the top 10 in adjusted yards per pass, as just one example:

2005:

B Roethlisberger 8.02

P Manning 7.90

T Green 7.36

M Hasselbeck 7.33

C Palmer 7.10

J Plummer 7.09

M Bulger 7.08

T Brady 7.06

B Leftwich 6.78

J Delhomme 6.76

1995:

J Harbaugh 8.03

B Favre 7.38

T Aikman 7.29

S Mitchell 7.06

E Kramer 7.05

J George 6.98

N O'Donnell 6.79

D Marino 6.71

J Elway 6.64

V Testaverde 6.64

1985:

K O'Brien 7.74

B Esiason 7.36

D Fouts 7.00

B Kenney 6.81

J Montana 6.76

J McMahon 6.54

P Simms 6.36

D Marino 6.16

J Schroeder 6.14

D Brock 6.12

1975:

K Anderson 7.65

B Jones 6.69

T Bradshaw 6.40

F Tarkenton 6.26

R Staubach 6.08

J Ferguson 5.95

J Harris 5.66

B Kilmer 5.64

J Hart 5.34

C Morton 4.82

I think QB play has been trending UPWARD, even with younger QBs at the helm.

Different game. Different rules. Different landcape. These stats are nearly useless without proper context.

I understand your point about stats being contextual. But we're talking about QB success, are we not? How would you define success at the QB position? If it's winning, look at how many successful young QBs there are these days. Guys like Brady, Big Ben, Palmer are having success very early. The wins are there. The stats are there. I'm not sure I'm seeing this argument that young QBs being thrust into starting roles are hurting the NFL product.I'd argue the exact OPPOSITE point.

 

[Koya]

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

So Mort's fear is that owners, players and fans are unable to evolve?

I'm not sure what his bent is...he elaborate by throwing out how the Steelers dominated the 70s without being a big market team and how the Marlins won two WS titles in a small market. Lord help us if the NFL starts taking cues from major league baseball, and the business conditions of the 70s in the NFL are so vastly different than today when money has gotten enormous; his examples are bordering on ridiculous.

I think his point is that the league promotes mediocrity over greatness. Put together an ok team, then get a little lucky and have an above average year and hope for some things to fall in place in win a Super Bowl.Back in the 70s-90's, it was rare that a team could win a Super Bowl without being a GREAT team. There was not parity, but you had 5 or so good to great teams every year, who played the game so much better than ANY team does nowadays because of the landscape of the league under the current cap system.

When you melt everything down to the lowest common denominator, you take away a lot of the greatness that while not as competitively balanced, gives more reason to watch because you are witnessing a great team. Not the better of a bunch of average teams, which is what we have today.

I don't buy this argument at all.The one thing that stands out from the "glory days" of the NFL that guys like Mort describe is that there were "great" teams then. Who's to say? The Steelers played in an era when it was feast or famine. You were either a great team like Pitt, Dallas and the Raiders, or you were TERRIBLE like the Bucs, Bills or Seahawks.

What really constitutes a "great" team? The Raiders were a very successful franchise for well over a decade, but they were pretty mediocre defensively. In a lot of ways, they were the Indianapolis Colts of their time. They could put up a bunch of points but were often ranked outside of the top 10 defensively. And they still won two Super Bowls in 5 years.

I think a lot of this is "good ole days" nostalgia BS.

Name me a team with the number of HoF all time greats the likes of the old Steelers, the Cowboys, the 49ers. It isnt nostalgia... we have a more equal playing field now. The bad teams are not as bad, the good teams not as good.

To me, that is more meh.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This morning Mort was on Mike & Mike and when asked about the labor situation, went into a diatribe about how removing the salary cap might not be a bad thing because the quality of play in the NFL wasn't very good anymore. I was shocked to hear him say this [particularly when it's the popularity of that very league which pays his bills].

So I thought maybe I misunderstood his point, but in today's online chat...he made the comment again and was asked to clarify. He said...

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

Very bold statements from a guy who makes his living as an evangelist of the NFL and as someone that gets intel from every league office in the land. Do you agree or disagree?

Jason, the NFL has been going downhill for some time. The Packers of the 60s, Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s, Niners of the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s....those days are not going to happen again. The league was better when everyone hated the Niners. Sorry Pats fans but you scraped up 3 Super Bowl wins in a very down era for the NFL. The salary cap makes for a more even league but the brand of football sucks and it came to a pinnacle with 2 teams this season that would not have made a Super Bowl in many other previous decades.I question my NFL love lately and have really been much more excited about college football and who they are signing than anything the NFL is doing. I have written threads before in here and taken flack for my criticism of the salary cap and the NFL...I am glad to see Mort feels the same way.

 

[cstu]

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

So Mort's fear is that owners, players and fans are unable to evolve?

I'm not sure what his bent is...he elaborate by throwing out how the Steelers dominated the 70s without being a big market team and how the Marlins won two WS titles in a small market. Lord help us if the NFL starts taking cues from major league baseball, and the business conditions of the 70s in the NFL are so vastly different than today when money has gotten enormous; his examples are bordering on ridiculous.

I think his point is that the league promotes mediocrity over greatness. Put together an ok team, then get a little lucky and have an above average year and hope for some things to fall in place in win a Super Bowl.Back in the 70s-90's, it was rare that a team could win a Super Bowl without being a GREAT team. There was not parity, but you had 5 or so good to great teams every year, who played the game so much better than ANY team does nowadays because of the landscape of the league under the current cap system.

When you melt everything down to the lowest common denominator, you take away a lot of the greatness that while not as competitively balanced, gives more reason to watch because you are witnessing a great team. Not the better of a bunch of average teams, which is what we have today.

I don't buy this argument at all.The one thing that stands out from the "glory days" of the NFL that guys like Mort describe is that there were "great" teams then. Who's to say? The Steelers played in an era when it was feast or famine. You were either a great team like Pitt, Dallas and the Raiders, or you were TERRIBLE like the Bucs, Bills or Seahawks.

What really constitutes a "great" team? The Raiders were a very successful franchise for well over a decade, but they were pretty mediocre defensively. In a lot of ways, they were the Indianapolis Colts of their time. They could put up a bunch of points but were often ranked outside of the top 10 defensively. And they still won two Super Bowls in 5 years.

I think a lot of this is "good ole days" nostalgia BS.

Name me a team with the number of HoF all time greats the likes of the old Steelers, the Cowboys, the 49ers. It isnt nostalgia... we have a more equal playing field now. The bad teams are not as bad, the good teams not as good.

To me, that is more meh.

The Colts - Manning, James, Harrison and possibly Wayne and Freeney down the road. If they had won a SB or two they would be mentioned in the same breath with those with the Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers.

 

[cstu]

This morning Mort was on Mike & Mike and when asked about the labor situation, went into a diatribe about how removing the salary cap might not be a bad thing because the quality of play in the NFL wasn't very good anymore. I was shocked to hear him say this [particularly when it's the popularity of that very league which pays his bills].

So I thought maybe I misunderstood his point, but in today's online chat...he made the comment again and was asked to clarify. He said...

The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The perception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

Very bold statements from a guy who makes his living as an evangelist of the NFL and as someone that gets intel from every league office in the land. Do you agree or disagree?

Jason, the NFL has been going downhill for some time. The Packers of the 60s, Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s, Niners of the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s....those days are not going to happen again. The league was better when everyone hated the Niners. Sorry Pats fans but you scraped up 3 Super Bowl wins in a very down era for the NFL. The salary cap makes for a more even league but the brand of football sucks and it came to a pinnacle with 2 teams this season that would not have made a Super Bowl in many other previous decades.I question my NFL love lately and have really been much more excited about college football and who they are signing than anything the NFL is doing. I have written threads before in here and taken flack for my criticism of the salary cap and the NFL...I am glad to see Mort feels the same way.

So you miss dominant teams that made the NFL boring? Do you even remember what it was like watching a regular season Cowboys or 49ers game? Now I can watch any two teams and at least have a chance at seeing a competitive game.