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

[Autumn Wind]

Everyone loves dynasties as long as it's their team that is one.

 

[BlueOnion]

Somewhat of a tangent.

I had a European friend who asked me this question once, "Why do Americans like NASCAR so much over CART (open wheel) Racing? CART has better technology, better cars, better drivers and they race on road coarses. It doesn't make any sense to me."

My reply, "Everything you said is 100% true. But NASCAR doesn't promote itself as being the best racing circuit, it promotes itself as being the most competitive racing circuit, and there is a big difference."

 

[BlueOnion]

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.

Seriously. The leadup to those great Cowboys-49er Championship games was 17 or 18 weeks of pure boredom.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Somewhat of a tangent.

I had a European friend who asked me this question once, "Why do Americans like NASCAR so much over CART (open wheel) Racing? IRL has better technology, better cars, better drivers and they race on road coarses. It doesn't make any sense to me."

My reply, "Everything you said is 100% true. But NASCAR doesn't promote itself as being the best racing circuit, it promotes itself as being the most competitive racing circuit, and there is a big difference."

Exactly BO,F1 dealt with the same problem. It was Schumacher and everyone else there. That might be great for Ferrari but not for the whole "league".

J

 

[Orange Crush]

In the old days, there were great teams and crappy teams with very few teams in between. What determined whether a team was great was based almost entirely on talent evaluation with a smaller but still significant factor being coaching. From the AFL/NFL merger through the '98 season, only 9 teams --- Dallas (5 championships, 8 SB appearances), San Francisco (5/5), Pittsburgh (4/5), Washington (3/5), Oakland/L.A. (3/3), Denver (2/6), Green Bay (3/4), Miami (2/5), and the N.Y. Giants (2/2) --- won all the championships with 2 exceptions (Baltimore in '70 under Don Shula, and Chicago in '85 with the 86 defense). That's 9 teams competing for the championship for 33 years, totaling 31 championships and 43 Super Bowl appearances. The other 19 teams totaled 2 championships and 23 appearances.

The individuals most responsible for those teams' dominance can be easily named. Guys like Shula, Walsh, Davis, Gibbs, Lombardi, Parcells, Rooney, and Elway. Only one of those guys was a player, as I think Elway was hampered by coaching for most of those years and still took his team to the Super Bowl, albeit in a losing effort. The Steelers are an interesting case study as they were the first team to make a serious organizational commitment to scouting and thus I credit the owner more than any other individual with that franchise.

But I prefer the current system, where individuals can still dominate the game, but not with a lot of help. Belichick needed a Pioli, Kraft, and Brady to win multiple championships. Without any of those other guys helping, I doubt he could pull it off, just as you see Gibbs struggling with Snyder, Parcells struggling with Jones, and Davis unable to compete in the modern era. I think the championships today are won by lesser teams, but the effort and teamwork required is so much greater.

 

[Autumn Wind]

I can side with Mort on one aspect regarding the "good ol' days." I think as a general football fan it is much more satisfying to watch a team slowly assemble the pieces of a good or great run.

I do think that when a 4-12 team can turn around and the very next season and make it to the Super Bowl or the conference championships it may be exciting, but it seems a bit cheapened compared to a team that built their way up to that level.

 

[BlueOnion]

Somewhat of a tangent.

I had a European friend who asked me this question once, "Why do Americans like NASCAR so much over CART (open wheel) Racing? IRL has better technology, better cars, better drivers and they race on road coarses. It doesn't make any sense to me."

My reply, "Everything you said is 100% true. But NASCAR doesn't promote itself as being the best racing circuit, it promotes itself as being the most competitive racing circuit, and there is a big difference."

Exactly BO,F1 dealt with the same problem. It was Schumacher and everyone else there. That might be great for Ferrari but not for the whole "league".

J

It was probably F1 my friend compared NASCAR to, not CART (or IRL). But the same point.

 

[jdoggydogg]

"The league isn't as good. The play isn't as good." I've heard this a lot. I don't see it. Sure, there was a time when teams like the '85 Bears or the '77 Steelers would absolutely destroy teams, but that does not prove that the league isn't as good.

Let's make a checklist:

1) Are the players as good? YES

2) Are the games exciting? YES

3) Are there truly dominant teams? NO

The "NO" answer to #3 does not prove the league isn't as good. I think the correct answer is that the league is *different*. Than it used to be. Different is bad to some people, but I think the modern NFL is far more exciting. There, I said it. I think that having a handful of teams that win all of the decade's Super Bowl games is dull.

Comparing teams from the previous eras to modern teams is a bit sketchy. To use another analogy, if someone says that Eddie Van Halen is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix, that ignores the myriad factors that created both players.

 

[monessen]

Am not sure what Mort meant exactly by the "bad league" comment, but the quality of his work in recent years has been nothing special. His reports don't seem that insightful to me and I think his stuff declined since Jimmy Johnson left the Dolphins. Johnson may have been a top source of inside info for him years ago, and that's just not happening anymore. We're continually being told by ESPN that "Mort's been working the phones," etc., but what he normally offers is conjecture and I don't see where his "scoops" are anything special----mostly just rumor-mongering. Clayton and Pasquarelli probably come through consistently with better, more thoughtful material. Mort is like a baseball player who keeps making the All-Star game by reputation.

I learn a lot more about what's going on in the NFL from this site and, specifically, from this board than from anyone at ESPN. It must be true of a lot of us, given how frequently we rely on the news here.

So, I suppose it matters little what Mort thinks of the NFL at present.

 

[Jason Wood]

Am not sure what Mort meant exactly by the "bad league" comment, but the quality of his work in recent years has been nothing special. His reports don't seem that insightful to me and I think his stuff declined since Jimmy Johnson left the Dolphins. Johnson may have been a top source of inside info for him years ago, and that's just not happening anymore. We're continually being told by ESPN that "Mort's been working the phones," etc., but what he normally offers is conjecture and I don't see where his "scoops" are anything special----mostly just rumor-mongering. Clayton and Pasquarelli probably come through consistently with better, more thoughtful material. Mort is like a baseball player who keeps making the All-Star game by reputation.

I learn a lot more about what's going on in the NFL from this site and, specifically, from this board than from anyone at ESPN. It must be true of a lot of us, given how frequently we rely on the news here.

So, I suppose it matters little what Mort thinks of the NFL at present.

I actually think that can be said about Mort, John Clayton and Peter King. But I think that's not so much a byproduct of their work getting shoddy, but rather the Internet and disintermediation of information has made their perceived "edge" must more transparent.

 

[cstu]

I can side with Mort on one aspect regarding the "good ol' days." I think as a general football fan it is much more satisfying to watch a team slowly assemble the pieces of a good or great run.

I do think that when a 4-12 team can turn around and the very next season and make it to the Super Bowl or the conference championships it may be exciting, but it seems a bit cheapened compared to a team that built their way up to that level.

I think those quick turnarounds aren't as quick as they seem. The Chargers for example were building since 2001 to become the a 12-4 team in 2004. That seemed quick but it's a cumulative process that takes time. Sometimes it seems to happen overnight, but it just shows how a team with a couple weaknesses can go 4-12 and then go 12-4 after getting a couple key pieces. Most teams weren't building from scratch like the Chargers so they can make improvements that result in a much better record fairly quickly. A lot of the turnarounds you see, like the Panthers, were due to injuries the previous year that made the team seem worse than it actually was.

 

[monessen]

Jason, I agree. I did have to step away for a minute to look up the word disintermediation.

At the risk of getting far away from the topic on the table, your observation about the reliance on internet sources definitely transcends the world of sports news. Many traditional TV and cable networks have been seeing their audiences slip due to the blogs and other alternative outlets of info. Competition can be a good thing for the journalism business, yet it ought to make the Morts and Kings work even harder to discover what's truly going on instead of just posturing.

Am not sure why a league with so much parity is being viewed negatively. The good old days were fine, but why should we go back to a time when the same teams dominated each year?

 

[Z-Dog]

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 genius of the Patriots is that they're aren't the most talented team, they're simply the team taht executes best. I think that every year that they won the Superbowl, the Colts had more offensive talent, as did Kansas City, the Vikings, the Raiders, and probably a few other teams too. Teams with more defensive talent inlcuded the Panthers, Eagles, Steelers (maybe), Ravens, and Bucs. The Patriots won anyway. Some will argue that the officials had a hand in that, from the infamous tuck rule to the way the Pats mugged the Colts WRs. Honestly though, that's a boring conversation, especially b/c if it's true then it means we should stop watching football (or start watching pro wrestling). So looking beyond that, what it comes down to is the system, the coaching, and the mental toughness and discipline. I would argue that though other dynasty teams had more talent, none had the toughness, discipline, versatility, and depth of the Patriots. It's just a different way to win.

 

[radballs.]

Great thread Jason. I agree that I prefer the NFL the way it is today. A lot of the people opposed to the current NFL structure say that it isn't parity but mediocrity that the league is supporting. That the league is a watered down product of its former self. I disagree with these points and like the thrill of thinking that my team has a shot to win it all at the beginning of the season. In past decades, teams and fans of those teams knew their team was out of contention before the season even got under way. I'll enjoy the product either way but I strongly prefer a level playing field.

On a side note, I wonder how the NFL without a salary cap would affect the Sunday Ticket subscriber base. I would think that it would have to hurt it because with fewer premium teams, good matchups will be more rare and will most likely be televised nationally anyway. Of course, for those people that subscribe due to living away from their team's market, they'll still pay for it.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Without a salary cap, the league would quickly turn into a league of have's and have not's with very little middle ground. Smaller market teams would be outbid on every single high profile free agent, and the higher market teams would be able to sustain signing high profile free agents that end up being busts.

Mort pines for the "good ole days" but the good ole days are dead because of free agency.

 

[Jason Wood]

Mike & Mike picked up on this story and ran with it today, and then Mort came on again and re-iterated his stance with more granularity. Mort's arguments ring hollow to me, but he seems convinced.

Mike & Mike pointed to a column Jayson Stark [an ESPN baseball guy for those who only follow the pigskin ], where Stark took issue with the notion that football has more parity than baseball. Stark pointed to the fact that 42% of baseball's teams have made the final 4 [i.e., the championship series] in the last six years [since revenue sharing was introduced] versus 37% of NFL franchises. He also pointed out that baseball has had a different world champ each of the last six seasons, whereas the NFL hasn't had a streak like that since the 60s [and they've only done it that one time].

It's an interesting debate. Personally I would hate to chance a big change like that. If you want to debate that the NFL has room for improvement, I'm all for that. But in my mind it's so far and away the best sport AND it's the most successful economic model that I just fail to see how a major change like removing the salary cap could really improve things.

 

[Aaronstory]

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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

 

[Jason Wood]

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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

 

[msommer]

On a tangent that I don't think has been explored (maybe for a good reason )

There are now 32 teams in the league, there is the same amount of college programs to choose players from. Assuming that the talent pool is stable YOY, doesn't it follow that with the expansion of teams quality of play diminishes?

 

[BigRed]

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. 

I have no idea how you think any of those things are really relevant, although I'm not sure what you mean by "all time top 10" (ie statitiscally? fan opinion? what?). As for 5-6 future HOFers playing, on the presumption that the HOF is the measuring stick it's supposed to be (debatable IMO, given some of the players I see/hear being associated w/it nowdays), so what? You could say that of nearly any year, I would think.

Finally, this should be like saying water is wet, but bigger and faster also doesn't mean better.

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.

The flip side is IMO we see fewer truly great teams, or play. This past SB is a prime example. Sure they earned their way, blah blah.....but the level of play in the SB (and the playoffs to a siginificant extent even) was hardly top quality. Quite often it either stank or was very mediocre. I think Mort's point is that games/play seem to have become more of a "won by default" kinda thing, ie the quality of play is less a team/drive/player succeeding because he/they did well, and more because the other side screwed up, or they just sort of trudged their way to it. IMO that is true, to a large extent.

If the NFL loses the cap, the popularity of the league will be in grave danger.

Thank God. Best thing that could happen to it. Maybe then a lot of the supercircus freakshow soap opera BS would finally go away and we could re-focus on simply the sport again (not that I'd hold my breath).

  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? 

True, I'd choose diff. teams, but I would love to see some truly "great" teams again (which oh btw doesn't automatically mean "dynasty") vs the proliferation of half-(buttcheeks) schmucky ones we have today. Well worth the trade-off.

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.

Yeah right. There's no more backlash vs NE than there ever was to a team who wins it repeatedly. People just babble about it a lot more now due to the proliferation of the 'net, msg boards, etc.

Personally, I like the 30-27 Super Bowls a lot better than the 55-10 ones. 

I do WHEN THEY ARE GOOD GAMES. If you think a close game equates to a good one, you're deluding yourself...ie if it's close because both teams are stinking up the field equally, it's not a good game. Again, we're talking about quality of play.

The Super Bowl is actually a football game again, rather than just an "event"

Thx for confirming that you really are severely deluded.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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?

I tend to agree. I don't any SB winner over the past 5-6 seasons could reasonably expect to beat the 1990s Cowboys or any of the other "dynasty" teams. On one hand, the NFL has much greater parity than it did before, which as a fan is cool since it makes the games more entertaining. But I don't see how anybody could doubt that the "good" teams of today just objectively aren't as good as the "good" teams of yesterday.

(Then again, today's bad teams are probably better than some of the happless 2-14 teams of the past, so maybe it all balances out).

 

[Aaronstory]

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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

While Mort may be a blathering idiot (which he mostly comes off as) I happen to think he's more right than wrong on this one. Just look at the coach of the current SB champions. If he had any other owner, he would have been gone years ago. Because he has one of the last links to the pre-merger days looking over him, he was allowed to right the ship, and it payed off. I hope more owners will take notice.As for QB play, Mort is nothing but correct. Think about it. What was the winning QB's quarterback rating in the SB for goodness sake? The 'best' teams in the league (ie playoff teams) had some despicable QB play in the playoffs. Other than Rothlisberger, name a first round QB who has/is succeeding in the NFL. For every success, there are more and more faliures.

 

[Jason Wood]

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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

While Mort may be a blathering idiot (which he mostly comes off as) I happen to think he's more right than wrong on this one. Just look at the coach of the current SB champions. If he had any other owner, he would have been gone years ago. Because he has one of the last links to the pre-merger days looking over him, he was allowed to right the ship, and it payed off. I hope more owners will take notice.As for QB play, Mort is nothing but correct. Think about it. What was the winning QB's quarterback rating in the SB for goodness sake? The 'best' teams in the league (ie playoff teams) had some despicable QB play in the playoffs. Other than Rothlisberger, name a first round QB who has/is succeeding in the NFL. For every success, there are more and more faliures.

Peyton Manning

Donovan McNabb

Carson Palmer

Steve McNair

Daunte Culpepper

Eli Manning

Drew Bledsoe

Michael Vick

Byron Leftwich

One season or playoff run does not an era make...

 

[Aaronstory]

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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

While Mort may be a blathering idiot (which he mostly comes off as) I happen to think he's more right than wrong on this one. Just look at the coach of the current SB champions. If he had any other owner, he would have been gone years ago. Because he has one of the last links to the pre-merger days looking over him, he was allowed to right the ship, and it payed off. I hope more owners will take notice.As for QB play, Mort is nothing but correct. Think about it. What was the winning QB's quarterback rating in the SB for goodness sake? The 'best' teams in the league (ie playoff teams) had some despicable QB play in the playoffs. Other than Rothlisberger, name a first round QB who has/is succeeding in the NFL. For every success, there are more and more faliures.

Peyton Manning

Donovan McNabb

Carson Palmer

Steve McNair

Daunte Culpepper

Eli Manning

Drew Bledsoe

Michael Vick

Byron Leftwich

One season or playoff run does not an era make...

You consider Drew Bledsoe, Daunte Culpepper, Byron Leftwich and Michael Vick success'? Wow. I'll just say we have different standards and leave it at that...

 

[Jason Wood]

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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

While Mort may be a blathering idiot (which he mostly comes off as) I happen to think he's more right than wrong on this one. Just look at the coach of the current SB champions. If he had any other owner, he would have been gone years ago. Because he has one of the last links to the pre-merger days looking over him, he was allowed to right the ship, and it payed off. I hope more owners will take notice.As for QB play, Mort is nothing but correct. Think about it. What was the winning QB's quarterback rating in the SB for goodness sake? The 'best' teams in the league (ie playoff teams) had some despicable QB play in the playoffs. Other than Rothlisberger, name a first round QB who has/is succeeding in the NFL. For every success, there are more and more faliures.

Peyton Manning

Donovan McNabb

Carson Palmer

Steve McNair

Daunte Culpepper

Eli Manning

Drew Bledsoe

Michael Vick

Byron Leftwich

One season or playoff run does not an era make...

You consider Drew Bledsoe, Daunte Culpepper, Byron Leftwich and Michael Vick success'? Wow. I'll just say we have different standards and leave it at that...

Bledsoe has been a very successful NFL QB, absolutely. I'm not talking strictly about last year. Culpepper had arguably the second best passing season in league history in 2004, are we so quick to forget that? Leftwich and Vick are certainly more debatable...but if you're definining success by wins and losses [which you must be if you single out Big Ben], they've both done quite well.

 

[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.

I would submit that tackling is as bad as it has ever been. Coaches don't hit in practice during the season for fear of injury, and it shows on the field.

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

While Mort may be a blathering idiot (which he mostly comes off as) I happen to think he's more right than wrong on this one. Just look at the coach of the current SB champions. If he had any other owner, he would have been gone years ago. Because he has one of the last links to the pre-merger days looking over him, he was allowed to right the ship, and it payed off. I hope more owners will take notice.As for QB play, Mort is nothing but correct. Think about it. What was the winning QB's quarterback rating in the SB for goodness sake? The 'best' teams in the league (ie playoff teams) had some despicable QB play in the playoffs. Other than Rothlisberger, name a first round QB who has/is succeeding in the NFL. For every success, there are more and more faliures.

Is that a function of the salary cap or just poor scouting? The "flameout" rate of first round QB picks has ALWAYS been very high. Even prior to the salary cap era.Kelly Stouffer? Andre Ware? Jeff George? Dan McGwire? Todd Marinovich? David Klingler? Tommy Maddox? Rick Mirer?

Hell, there was about a 5 year period where Aikman was pretty much the ONLY successful first round QB to make it.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

Getting rid of the cap won't change that. The fickle nature of the modern sports fan dictates that the revolving door policy of coaches is here to stay.

 

[Workhorse]

Fair point...but when Mort was asked to elaborate he went on some tangential diatribe about QB play, too much coaching turnover, which leads to too much change in offensive systems...didn't really make a convincing point. He also pointed to Chuck Noll and Landry having a bunch of losing seasons to start their tenures, and how in today's NFL they would've never been allowed to keep their jobs long enough to become legends.

Getting rid of the cap won't change that. The fickle nature of the modern sports fan dictates that the revolving door policy of coaches is here to stay.

And is there a huge difference between coaches who are allowed to fail for a while in a city and eventually become successful (like Noll and Landry) vs. coaches who get fired after failing and getting second and third chances somewhere down the line (Belichick, Vermeil, Shanahan)?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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

NASCAR's restrictor plate = The NFL Salary Cap

 

[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.

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

NASCAR's restrictor plate = The NFL Salary Cap

Who's this Jeff Pasquino guy Congrats Jeff...although the name Jeff Eaglz will be missed.

 

[Obie Wan]

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.

not to mention that the Steelers gained an unfair advantage over otehr teams by leading the way into the Steroids era.

 

[Obie Wan]

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.

The fact that there are more teams now than in 1970s wouldn't have anything to do with the dilution of talent?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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

NASCAR's restrictor plate = The NFL Salary Cap

Who's this Jeff Pasquino guy Congrats Jeff...although the name Jeff Eaglz will be missed.

TY, but let's not hijack the thread here....This is a great discussion. I agree with Mort to a point - the depth of NFL rosters has suffered due to the cap. "Cap casualty" vets are let go every year - and we're seeing the biggest set this week. Steve Tasker-like contributors just don't exist any more. If you can't start in 3 years or less, you're history.

As for the quality of play, it goes to depth and injuries. The teams that do well YOY are the ones that either stay very healthy or have rookies play over their heads as they are forced to the field.

A point that hasn't been made yet is that a new dynamic will likely emerge if the NFL goes capless. We may see the capologists actually influence teams even more, a la Oakland A's / Moneyball. Teams will be forced to find "diamonds in the rough" that come cheaper to compete against the "haves" of big spenders in Washington and Dallas.

 

[Urinal Mint]

I agree 100% and think dynasties are what makes the NFL great, not 20 mediocre teams beating eachother all season and a lesser-injured team winning it all.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I read his comments to be that with so much voliatility in personnel and coaches, it's difficult for teams to reach the same level as the teams that played together and perfected offensive and defensive schemes for years.

 

[nygiants56]

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

don't foget `Awesome Bill from Dawesonville`...bill elliott..lol

Parity comes from the fact that they've made restrictions on things such as aerodynamics, restrictor plates for the super speedways ( which killed Ford's chances, since they were the best at wide-open high speed tracks), everyone uses identical tires, nascar regulated fuel, all carbs and engines are checked during time trials, before and after races, car height is monitored, etc..

you're right,they've made nascar like the old IROC series, where every car is indentical..and they've also tried to get it to the point where 3-abreast racing is the norm. and it now is.

the nfl is the same as IROC.everyone is nearly identical..the best is that the worst teams can turn things around in 1 year, like chicago did this year..that used to take a decade to do, but it no longer takes as long..

that is the biggest plus, that any team can get things together quickly, any tem NOT named `The NY Jets`, that is..