Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1060245]They should limit the use of the franchise tag on a player. Sucks for the players.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk[/quote]

Owners create any policy to screw the players, franchise tag, salary cap, they are all there just to make sure owners keep the revenue.

[QUOTE=donofriose;1060253]Owners create any policy to screw the players, franchise tag, salary cap, they are all there just to make sure owners keep the revenue.[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure the players union signed off on every CBA where a franchise tag was available.

Ruhskins. I think a player can only be franchised 2 times but not positive about that. What type of limit are you thinking of in your post?

edit changed CBS to CBA

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1060256]Pretty sure the players union signed off on every CBS where a franchise tag was available.

Ruhskins. I think a player can only be franchised 2 times but not positive about that. What type of limit are you thinking of in your post?[/quote]

Just because they signed it, doesn't mean players wanted it or didn't get screwed. The NFL, more than any other league, bullies its players and its union into taking less money because they know lesser players will need a deal. Just like the concussion settlement. The NFL even found a way to make contracts not guaranteed. It is just smart business in the end on the NFL owner's part. It is why Roger gets paid so much.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=donofriose;1060264][B]Just because they signed it, doesn't mean players wanted it [/B]or didn't get screwed. The NFL, more than any other league, bullies its players and its union into taking less money because they know lesser players will need a deal. Just like the concussion settlement. The NFL even found a way to make contracts not guaranteed. It is just smart business in the end on the NFL owner's part. It is why Roger gets paid so much.[/quote]

Well yes, signing it does basically mean that they wanted to take the deal that their leadership presented to them, which includes the franchise tag designation. And they have kept it through several CBAs now. Truthfully, most players probably don't care about the franchise tag, given that out of about 2000 players a year, it at most affects 32.

I do think the players got screwed this last go around, but I mostly blame an NFLPA leadership that was intent on breaking the system all together through bad faith and court room tactics, rather than working together, so when they couldn't break it they had to concede.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=donofriose;1060264]Just because they signed it, doesn't mean players wanted it or didn't get screwed. The NFL, more than any other league, bullies its players and its union into taking less money because they know lesser players will need a deal. Just like the concussion settlement. The NFL even found a way to make contracts not guaranteed. It is just smart business in the end on the NFL owner's part. It is why Roger gets paid so much.[/quote]
Wow...that's exactly what it means.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today. For example the entire NFC east sucks. Not one strong team.

[QUOTE=Defensewins;1060321]I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today. For example the entire NFC east sucks. Not one strong team.[/QUOTE]

I hate to say, but I have to agree!

Sent from my RCT6378W2

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=Defensewins;1060320]I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today.[/quote]I disagree. It was fun back in the 80's when the NFCE and San Fran, teams with more money, dominated. But I don't think things have changed much despite the cap. Poorly managed teams (us, Raiders, Bucs, etc.) still suck. And well managed teams (Pats, Steelers, Niners, etc.) still do well.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

You still have the same teams year after year in Super Bowls. The AFC is a perfect example. 11 out of the past 13 superbowls have been represented by the same three quarterbacks.

Only in baseball, where there is no salary cap, does a team go from worst to first.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=Defensewins;1060321]I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today. For example the entire NFC east sucks. Not one strong team.[/quote]

So you would say get rid of the sc and play would become better? I dont think it would, I would say look at the style of play vs the rules change and that's where you see "this problem". The game has changed in the last 10 years dramatically.

I think I like the ability to of teams to become good or bad quickly.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=Defensewins;1060320]I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today.[/quote]

The days of the super teams are over. However, the teams with strong ownership, front office structure a blueprint and good coaching seem to always field competitive teams. It's not a surprise that Washington, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Oakland are not consistent winners.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[quote=Defensewins;1060321]I have grown to hate the current system. The salary cap has diluted the play of the top teams in the nfl. There are less super teams. Plus we now have more weak teams.
Before salary cap we had Sf, NYG, Wash, Bears, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, etc. we're all strong teams all at the same time. And these teams were deep, with plenty of talent on the bench.
Today we have two super teams, a handful of good teams and the rest struggle to field a complete lineup. I have never seen so many bad teams as we have today. For example the entire NFC east sucks. Not one strong team.[/quote]

You are right, the era of the super teams is gone.

Is that really so bad? The era of the super teams was great...if you were one of the super teams. The bad teams had a hard time getting good and in the meantime knew that they were just whipping posts for SF, Dallas, and us. It was not a good time for fans of non-super teams.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

ratings prove that the nfl is doing it right and i think the parity has really helped with that.

in other news, looks like boldin is staying in SF... oh well.

Re: the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain
 

[url=http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24455137/jim-harbaughs-relationship-with-49ers-brass-is-getting-worse]Jim Harbaugh's relationship with 49ers brass is getting worse - CBSSports.com[/url]

Looks to be a power struggle out in San Fran. Already had Jimmy Haslam confirm trade talks were had with SF for Harbaugh.