LT2_3

That's how it would work if implemented but that doesn't address why the players would ever agree to it in the first place. Ok, then how would that work? The salary cap ceiling is (roughly) 59% of the league's total revenue. The salary cap floor is (roughly) 85.6% of the cap ceiling. So a cap ceiling of 100 million would have a cap floor of 85.6 million. If you lower the ceiling to 90 million, the floor lowers to 77.4 million. What's the ongoing formula that you would propose? We're at the point right now that the cap is a big issue. The last CBA changed the cap from being 60% of basically stadium and TV revenues to 60% of ALL revenues. That sounds reasonable until you realize that many teams are paying back hundreds of millions of dollars that they borrowed to pay their portion of either new stadiums or stadium rennovations. It is currently unsustainable and that is why the owners opted out of the CBA early. All of the current parameters are going to change somehow. I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of system to incentivise players staying with the team that drafted them. I think that players would reject what you have proposed. The reason I keep asking for examples is because I'm trying to identify what type of players you are trying to target with the proposal. It sounds to me that you're trying to keep the big name players mostly, not the backup CB/nickleback that a team drafted. Ones that were probably already franchised perhaps? Maybe if it's only applied as a bargaining tool after they've franchised a player. So instead of it being available for every player, it's only available for a guy that the team has designated as a franchise player. The players get a guaranteed 1 year of being franchised, and the owners get a 25% discount against the cap while negotiating for a long term contract in year 2. How's that sound?

Exactly. Agreed. But you haven't answered the question. If a new rookie scale is implemented as expected, then how does a lower salary cap (just for implementing your idea) benefit the players at all? The players wouldn't like it because they don't ALL just want as much money as possible. What they want is the FREEDOM of an open market with no restrictions or limitations. Your proposal would artificially give an advantage to the home team. If a player from Florida gets drafted by Buffalo, he's going to want to have the option to weigh the relative merits of an offer from Miami or Tampa in free agency based on equal footing. In other words, he wants to shop the Buffalo offer to a Florida team to see if they'll match it. If the offers are similar, he gets to move home. Another reason the players wouldn't like it is that the salary cap ceiling and floor are based on perccentages of league income. If you lower the cap by lowering the percentage of revenues to implement your idea, you lower the floor even further. Turning the cap from a hard cap to a soft cap would be basically mean that teams would have a far lower requirement on spending. I think you are operating on the assumption that most teams are operating at or near the cap ceiling. That's not true. There are at least 5 teams that have over $20 million of cap space at this point in the season - which is after all the major free agents have been signed. There really isn't anyone worth spending those cap dollars on. I'm pretty sure that if there is a new CBA that involves a salary cap, the cap ceiling will be lowered (% wise), the cap floor will be raised (% wise), and the use of LTBEs to roll over cap space will be limited or eliminated. I don't see how the players would ever agree to lowering the floor even further. Not to be snarky, but there is no projected cap for next year. Because of that it's impossible to know how far under (or over) the cap any team is. I checked the article and all it says is that he didn't rule out Cincy as an option - which is classy. That's all. I also find it funny that 2 of the 3 players you mentioned wouldn't have gotten an offer of 75% of what they ended up getting anyway - which serves to underscore that your proposal wouldn't have affected them anyway and they would have changed teams. I just don't understand why you think it would be a good idea. 1. It changes the cap system from a hard cap to a soft cap. 2. It doesn't benefit the players and in fact I don't think they would allow it 3. It would overly complicate the upcoming and already complicated CBA negotiations The problem is that the real issue is free agency. You're trying to use a mechanism that bastardizes the cap to circumvent the effect that free agency has on player movement. There is no way that it could be collectively bargained because it wouldn't benefit either side enough for them to give up something to get it. Sure, everyone wishes they had a unicorn that farts rainbows, and that's about as likely to happen. Is there a player that left his original team that you thought should have stayed with his original team that makes you think this is such a good idea?

Yes - the LTBEs were the mechanism that I was referring to that rolls free cap space over to the next year. The principle remains the same though. Teams can't spend more against the cap in the current year unless they failed to spend it the previous year and used LTBEs to roll it over to the current year. It's like not having any credit and getting a paycheck for $1000 per week. You can't spend more than $1000 now unless you saved money from a previous paycheck. That's a hard cap. Yes they could, but what I'm saying is that bonus money risk is a risk of actual dollars, not of cap space. So even if it costs less against the cap, different teams would determine a different level of acceptable risk based on the level of their need. So basically, if the Seahawks really need to sign a vet WR, they will be willing to pay 34% more than the Bengals for Houshmanzadeh. I'd like to know how a lower cap (and corresponding cap floor) would be better for the players. I see that it would be better for fans that want teams to keep their vets around longer if they implemented your vet thing, but how could a lower salary cap possibly be better for the players? Now are we talking about players that get released or players that are lost in free agency on the open market? The reason I ask is that players that are considered top tier rarely make it to free agency anymore. I would also suggest that players getting released would get released also under your scenario because of the nature of contracts. If a team thinks a player needs to take a paycut when on their 2nd contract (which are how you defined the "vets" in your scenario), they would already have a discounted price against the cap. At that point, if a player refuses a paycut, then they get released or traded so the net effect is still the same. So, in both cases, your proposal would have very little effect on player movement. Perhaps fewer guys get asked to take a paycut, but how many get asked to do that in the first place? I would say no on Haynesworth and Berrian for 2 reasons. 1. Neither the Bears or Titans are low on cap space so that leads me to believe that their qualms on guaranteed money were more based on the real world dollars and not related to the salary cap. 2. The other reason is that I believe the Redskins and Vikes would have paid more than they did to get those players. As for Houshmanzadeh, I think he was looking to get out of Cincy. Sure, I think they could implement the system you propose, I'm saying it's not going have the effect you are aiming for. In fact, it might even result in MORE player movement than without it. Teams will realize that if they want to sign someone else's free agents that they will have to overpay. The players knowing tjis, then will be less likely to sign a new contract before their old contract expires because their payday will be bigger simply by hitting the open market. The bottom line is that this would not benefit the players in virtually any scenario other than the fact that they would get paid even more ridiculous money to change teams.

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it work without massive changes to the way things currently work. 1. It would be a soft cap. The NFL does have a hard cap in that you can't exceed the cap during any league year. The rollover you refer to only happens when you don't use all of your cap anyway. The accounting is still a hard cap though. If the cap is 100 mil one year and you roll over 10 mil, then the following year it's the cap +10 mil. you can't ever spend more than you were supposed to have in the first place. 2. I don't think it would have the effect you are looking for because your suggestion doesn't address guaranteed money which is what players care most about. A player might likely choose a 4 year $40 mil contract with $20 mil guaranteed from another team than a 4 year $50 mil contract with $10 mil guaranteed that only costs the home team $37.5 mil against the cap. 3. With the cap getting so inflated over the past 3 years, teams are more worried about the actual dollars that they are spending whereas in the past they were trying to work the cap. So, before the last CBA extension, your idea might have worked, but as it stands now, saving cap space is pretty much the last thing on a team's mind. They don't need to worry about it because there is way too much of it. Maybe if you gave me examples of players that you think should have stayed with their own teams I could tell you why your suggestion would or wouldn't have worked. Someone brought up Haynesworth. In that case, your suggestion would have had no effect because the Titans didn't want to give that kind of guaranteed money to a player with an injury and suspension history. I'll give you another example: Bernard Berrian. The Bears were in the running to re-sign him, but the Vikes offered more than the Bears were willing to pay in real world dollars and particularly guaranteed money. It's not like they didn't have the cap space. They rolled over $10 mil last year to this year. They currently have over $20 mil in cap space. Some form of salary cap savings wouldn't have affected their decision one iota. I agree that it would be nice if players could stay with their teams more often. However, the fundamental nature of free agency is that teams with a glaring need will always be willing to pay more and guarantee more than teams without as great a need whether it's their first team or not. So, sure, it's a fun thing to talk about in the slow part of the offseason, but there is no way that the league will ever move away from a hard cap and guaranteed money will always be more important to a player rather than caring who pays it to them. It's a noble thought, but I don't see any way to effectively implement it without changing the current system radically. With your proposal, it would just mean that teams would just have to PLAN to spend far more on a FA than the team they were already on.

I don't think a veteran's exception would work out the way you think. As someone mentioned above, the problem is free agency. Players want to be able to get paid what the market will bear and get the contract security that comes with a large signing bonus. Any sort of veteran's exception would have to work like the franchise tag and not give the security of a long term deal negotiated on the open market. Players would never agree to that. They hate the franchise tag as it is. No matter how you slice it, you can't achieve teams staying together the way proposed without eliminating free agency, and that's not going to go away under any circumstances because a federal judge gave that to the players. The only way it could conceivably happen would be for the players to give it up - and that's just not going to happen. I understand the desire for teams to be able to retain their players, but it's just not going to happen because the players WANT to enter the free market and get the best deal for themselves.

Something people should realize is that folks wishing for players to stay with the team that drafted them longer aren't really against the salary cap, what they are really against is free agency. The reason why teams were able to hang on to their players for most of their careers in the 70s and 80s was because once a team drafted them, they held their rights forever unless they were traded. Players were paid what the team thought they were worth, or they retired. Some exceptions got themselves traded, but that was the gist of their choices. These suggestions for different exemptions from the cap to keep players on their teams longer would never work because the players would never agree to that. The 2 key things that players want are the freedom to sign with whatever team they choose once they hit free agency, and security in their contract. The players get security in their contract by signing contracts with signing bonuses that get prorated over the course of the contract which makes releasing them difficult with the way it hits the salary cap early in the contract. So the bottom line is that what folks don't like is free agency, not the salary cap.

I'm kinda on the fence IF they are open to more penalties based on future investigations - and it has nothing to do with it being the Pats. In the league statement declaring the penalties, it indicates that they will be investigating the other reported cheating incidents like the improper use of radio frequencies and the mysterious loss of communications between visitors sidelines and their booth in Foxboro. If they turn up more stuff, there should be more penalties and I think it should start with at least an 8 game suspension to Belicheat.

Is this the first year you keep guys from last year, or the first year that you keep them at the end of the year? If it's the first year that you keep them at the end of the year, you have to balance rookies/young guys with the player's potential future production. (I know - no duh) But taking a guy a round or two early if you really think they'll be dominant later, then it's worth it. If you miss, you'll end up with another high pick to take another future dominant rookie next year. A couple of years ago, a guy took over a team in a 3 player keeper league I commish, and asked my advice. He had LT and nobody else of value along with the first pick in the draft. I told him that with LT and good drafting, he could compete that year. He was convinced that he couldn't win that year and drafted accordingly. He took Stephen Jackson with the 1st overall pick. So, while he got the first overall pick again the following year, he now won the league last year, and has Hasselbeck, Tomlinson, and S. Jackson as keepers. How will you guys account for variable keeper amounts per team in the future? If 1/2 the league keeps 3 and the rest keep 4, do the guys that kept 3 get an early round to even things out?

As a Bears fan, I can assure you that as of right now, AP is the backup in case of injury. However, Wolfe will likely get more touches than AP if all 3 RBs are healthy. Wolfe is going to be a 3rd down back and might easily get more receptions than carries. Lovie said in the papers recently that AP will have a similar role to last year because they want to keep him fresh for special teams. That being said, AP is a punishing runner more similar to Benson and would likely become the primary guy if Benson gets injured. It would require fewer in season personnel changes. Then again, IF Wolfe starts tearing up the league, anything is possible. Also, don't read ANYHTING into his 4 year contract. That's the standard contract for someone where he was drafted. He can be cut at anytime with minimal penalty, and if he's really good, they have him locked up for 4 years.

Ummm, I did. Did you? His rookie year he held out but wasn't injured during camp. He got injured and missed a few games later on in the season on a hit directly sideways on his knee. I was amazed his knee wasn't torn up from that hit. Last year, he got a minor injury in camp. Because they had Jones, they wanted him 100% recovered before putting him back in. (along with the politics that allowed them to keep Jones as starter) I'm pretty sure he would've been able to go sooner had Jones not been around. Then he got hit on his plant leg behind the line of scrimmage in the SB. I guess I just don't see a pattern to any supposed injury history - and I watch every single game at least twice not to mention going to training camp every year.

No problem. I'm pretty sure he signed for a bit more than the veteran minimum. I'd read $1 million for the year. That's not really significant, but I *think* he had a standing offer to compete for a roster spot at the veteran minimum from the Bears if he couldn't find a gig anywhere else. I would also add that he managed to stick through the coaching staff change by doing everything he was asked to do by the coaching staff. He's a blue collar, lunch pail kinda guy. He should fit in well in Philly.

I don't think past opportunities are a realistic indicator for how many carries these guys will get in the coming year. Last year, the coaching staff kept Jones as the #1 because he was the most proven. I wouldn't read too much into that in what the team considered a SB run all year. Benson's blocking ability is always knocked, but he was as consistent as Jones was last year - it's just the coaches felt more comfortable with the veteran. As for the injury thing, Jones has a history of getting dinged and missing a couple games a year too. Benson hasn't missed much time due to injury so I kinda see that as a wash for comparison purposes. Sure, Benson's injury in the SB was VERY much in the public's awareness, but I blame that on the Oline by letting those guys into the backfield. Last year was the first time in Jones' career when he played in all 16 games and it's considered by many to be because Benson was there to spell him and keep him fresh. Benson will get more carries than he has ever had in the NFL before. Jones will be the #1 guy for the Jets. I think it all depends on which TEAM stays healthiest and which offense is most balanced. If I had to choose with both on the board, I would take Benson. They both averaged the same ypc last year, but Benson's ypc increased as the season went on if you break it down by month.

Ian Scott is solid but not spectacular. He doesn't make many mistakes, but he won't make many impact plays behind the line of scrimmage. The starting stats are slightly misleading due to Tommie Harris' injury last year. That and they always rotate their dline alot. He was almost never in on 3rd and long. Just because a guy starts the game doesn't mean automatically that he gets the most snaps. I would've loved to have him back, but I think the Bears wanted a DT with more ability to penetrate. Anthony Adams that we signed from the 49ers is more in that mold. He was drafted into Jauron/Blache's defensive scheme and just doesn't have the traits that they like for DT in the Tampa 2. The fact that he stuck so long speaks to his versatility.

A few clarifications for you: 1. Defensive units that are unable to continue at a high level from year to year usually have at least changes to the personnel. They suffer from retirements or players leaving via free agency. This unit returns all 11 starters. 2. Tank is a backup / rotation guy. He may not be ready at the start of camp, but he won't be IRed so I don't see the major issue with this. 3. Nobody held out of mini-camp. Briggs and Jones elected to skip voluntary workouts. Everybody was there when required by league rules. I must ask what you mean by bickering. Players unhappy with their contract situation - sure - but all teams have that.

While it's true that Martz had instant success in StL, I would propose not only that he had MUCH better talent to work with, but also that Vermeil had been in place for 2 years and I'm pretty sure that it was Vermeil's base offense and players like Warner, Bruce, Prohel, and Hakim had already had 2 years in the system. The drafting of Holt and trading for Faulk is what made the system really work that year and not so much Martz coming in as OC. I think that offense would've been vastly improved between '98 and '99 regardless of whether Martz was the OC or not.