too much parity, too few players

[Harlan Huckleby]

Every season is the same, the GMs around the league are scrambling to fill holes from injuries. 53 players is clearly not enough. Teams need 60-man rosters to have enough players who know the system and can fill in.

On a related issue, there is no competitive reason to have a salary cap for all players. Exempt all players drafted by a team from the cap. Exempt all new contracts signed after a player have been with a team for five years from the cap. Just cap free agent signings.

Small market teams will scream "bloody murder!" at first, but when you think it through, there are no free market forces that are going to drive up prices for players. In order for free agents to get big, uncapped money from Jerry Jones, they'd be ten years into their careers, well past their prime.

The results of these changes will be a little less parity, but advantage will be gained by drafting, not free agency. Older players like Ryan Grant, maybe Chad Clifton, will hang on longer with same team. Quality of play will improve without the constant in-season merry-go-round of players. Team success will be less dependent on luck of injuries. Fans will like beng able to follow players with longer careers on their home team.

[mraynrand]

How would having more players help when the 53 they already have are littered with players who can't fill in? What if they just allowed all 53 to be active?

How much longer could Chad Clifton hang on?

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's a good point. Teams already have about 6 not-ready-for-prime-time guys on the roster as it is. But those guys end up seeing the field, and street free agents end up playing too. A bigger roster, and change in cap allows playable vets to hang-on. A bigger roster keeps more guys who know the system, and a lot of them are going to be needed.

The 6 game-day inactives is a good rule because it helps teams with injuries stay competitive.

[pbmax]

Well, yes, I can see how the NFLPA would agree to this system.

And Rand is correct, it wouldn't increase available talent. Even if Clifton could hang on (or be active), he's still a shell of his former shelf.

Players just need to stop getting injured.

[Smidgeon]

Cliffy was already the oldest starting left tackle last year. Not sure a different system would have prevented his body from giving out.

[mraynrand]

Players just need to stop getting injured.

Now that you've IDed the problem, I expect some solutions. Results, I WANT RESULTS!!!!

[pbmax]

Now that you've IDed the problem, I expect some solutions. Results, I WANT RESULTS!!!!

First suggestion: Good tackling is overrated and risky. Lots of contact involved with that. I think we should have a system of rewards, payments even, for tackles that occur with minimum contact. Such as a Chuck Cecil missile shot (only contact is shoulder, top of head and bridge of nose) or Al Harris duck and cover (like the diving, rolling "tackle" of Adrian Peterson's knee). To encourage success, if such a tackle were to result in an opponent being unable to return to the game, and even larger reward could be presented.

[mraynrand]

Maybe we should just push to have the Deion Sanders Tackling Technique™ instituted league-wide.

[KYPack]

Jeezus Harlan.

You've really been burning the midnite oil in the 'ol doghouse, eh?

There is no chance of this. You'd be better off suggesting we go back to the days of the players buying their shoes from the team and paying for the tape they use.

The CBA precludes all of this & it ain't going away lately.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, yes, I can see how the NFLPA would agree to this system.

What possible objection would they have?

Free agency continues. There is a cap on free agency, but there is a cap there now.

It allows players to have longer careers. It opens up more jobs for players.

I think you misunderstand the proposal. The only party that will object are the teams. Their budgets are not going to blow up, but they lose that absolute certainty of the hard cap.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cliffy was already the oldest starting left tackle last year. Not sure a different system would have prevented his body from giving out.

Right. That's why I put a "maybe" around his continuing a career. But if you take him off the salary cap, there is a greater chance that the Packers take a chance on bringing him back. Same thing with Ryan Grant.

My proposal really is not as that radical. It nudges things in a positive direction.

[pbmax]

What possible objection would they have?

Free agency continues. There is a cap on free agency, but there is a cap there now.

It allows players to have longer careers. It opens up more jobs for players.

I think you misunderstand the proposal. The only party that will object are the teams. Their budgets are not going to blow up, but they lose that absolute certainty of the hard cap.

You cannot have free market bidding if the only one team can open the tap. Being able to sign homegrown players without cap consequence will inflate that market, I would guess slightly. But with a limit on free agent spending, it will depress outside offers to Free Agents. And this gives leverage to the homegrown team, or perhaps more clearly, will lessen the upward pressure homegrown teams face when resigning their own potential FAs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is no chance of this. You'd be better off suggesting we go back to the days of the players buying their shoes from the team and paying for the tape they use.

The CBA precludes all of this & it ain't going away lately.

All you are saying is it's not how they do things now. So therefore it is an impossibility.

Another example of incentivising teams to keep there own players: chances are better that Jeff Saturday would be with the Colts and Scott Wells stays with the Packers. What fun is there in fan favorites (a bit of stretch with Wells, but he was a consistent, hard-working performer) moving to new teams?
As Jerry Seinfeld famously noted, when players are moving all around, all that remains are the team uniforms, and you essentially are rooting for laundry.

Another example: Daniel Muir. He is one of so many just-a-guys who float around the league. Who replaced Daniel Muir when he left the Packers? More just-a-guys whose names we forget. Now maybe he's back. I think it would have been more interesting to see him stay and develop for 5 years, even if he is a so-so player. You get to "know" the player, hope springs eternal. The player shows some flash, and you keep hoping it comes back.

The point of my proposal is not to end player movement. Just add some modest incentive for players to stay with one team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You cannot have free market bidding if the only one team can open the tap. Being able to sign homegrown players without cap consequence will inflate that market, I would guess slightly.

The team has no particular incentive to overpay their homegrowners. Remember they are competing with the free agency market.

But with a limit on free agent spending, it will depress outside offers to Free Agents. And this gives leverage to the homegrown team, or perhaps more clearly, will lessen the upward pressure homegrown teams face when resigning their own potential FAs.

OK, you've done the whole loop. If you think it through, it's a reasonable system, it's self-balancing. It is a modest proposal that encourages players to have longer careers with the same team. The cap can be set at level that keeps free agency alive and well.

[pbmax]

The team has no particular incentive to overpay their homegrowners. Remember they are competing with the free agency market.


OK, you've done the whole loop. If you think it through, it's a reasonable system, it's self-balancing. It is a modest proposal that encourages players to have longer careers with the same team. The cap can be set at level that keeps free agency alive and well.

Not exactly a closed loop. Right now, a single determined team can elevate the contract market for a player and a position. Your system divides that group in two. Own group has a small advantage, to stay at home does not impact the cap.

But another group has a large disincentive, their own cap for all but their original team. It would encourage less FA and would depress the effect that bidding on players have in elevating their contracts. The FA cap would push down contract offers, instead of the current system elevating them. A home team would then have less competition and in aggregate, be able to sign players for less.

Just think about a team with a desperate position need. Right now that team is the FA players best friend. In your cap modified system, that team is restrained.

Baseball has shown the way this works to the players advantage. FA to ratchet up the target. Then arbitration to get everyone else closer to the new target.