NFL Question...

[pradaboy]

How come star players do not always end up at top teams (by top teams I mean teams making the playoffs every year)

RB Examples:
Maurice Jones-Drew
Chris Johnson
Adrian Peterson

In Europe with football (what you call soccer) any top player will always end up at a top team. In the NFL I see so many players who would kill if they were on a top team but are so limited now because they're on a meh-meh team.

[GatorB]

In the NFL playoff teams change every year. Very few teams continually stay on top. Also in the NFL until this year ther has been a salary cap. Which means teams could only spend so much on players. So no team could get all the good players. Also some players value money more than winning. Some players will sign for a team they know will suck but since they offered the most money they take the money. Also the NFL has a draft for college players where the worst teams pick first. And since supposedly the best college players would get picked first they would go to the worst teams.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by pradaboy

How come star players do not always end up at top teams (by top teams I mean teams making the playoffs every year)

RB Examples:
Maurice Jones-Drew
Chris Johnson
Adrian Peterson

In Europe with football (what you call soccer) any top player will always end up at a top team. In the NFL I see so many players who would kill if they were on a top team but are so limited now because they're on a meh-meh team.

The NFL draft order is determined first by the team record, with the worst team choosing first, and so on. Teams may trade up (with either players or draft picks) to improve their draft position.

Other considerations are current personnel, and team salary caps.

Players can sit out to avoid going to a bad team, but they do so at their own peril.

After establishing themselves in the league, and fulfilling their initial contract (or getting cut), players can opt for Free Agency, and put themselves on the market, but it still comes down to what each team's individual needs are, and how much they are willing to pay for the top players (and how many top players they can afford while keeping themselves under the salary cap).



Does the Bears vs Packers "Playoff" seem slightly ghey to anyone else?

ADG

[pradaboy]

Yeah I guess the draft system is a big part of this. I always assumed the top teams would attract star players after they run through their first contract but lots of players tend to re-sign.

It's just hard to see players with so much talent, breaking records, meanwhile knowing they will never have a SB ring.

[V_RocKs]

Because in America we have a concept called anti-trust.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by pradaboy

Yeah I guess the draft system is a big part of this. I always assumed the top teams would attract star players after they run through their first contract but lots of players tend to re-sign.

It's just hard to see players with so much talent, breaking records, meanwhile knowing they will never have a SB ring.

As I said in the NFL we don't have teams that stay good for 100 years in a row. For example

5 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2009 did not make the playoffs in 2010.
4 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2008 did not make the playoffs in 2009.
6 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2007 did not make the playoffs in 2008.
6 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2006 did not make the playoffs in 2007.
7 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2005 did not make the playoffs in 2006.

So as you can see over the last 5 years about 47% of teams that make the playoffs don't make the playoffs the next year. In fact 25 of the 32 teams in the NFL have made the playoffs at least once in the last 5 years. That's 78%. Between 2000-2009 14 teams of 32 have gone to the Super Bowl. 9 different teams have won a super bowl in the last 12 years. So to say players KNOW they won't ever get to a super Bowl is a bit naive.

Also to say Adrian Peterson hasn't been on good team shows lack of knowledge. He's been in the NFL for 4 seasons. Minnesota was bad in 2010, but in 2009 almost made it to the super bowl. His team also made the playoffs in 2008. In his 4 seasons the Vikings have a regular season record of 36-28.

[kane]

Two main reasons.

1. The Draft and contracts. A team that sucks has a chance at drafting a good player and signing them to a long term contract so they can hold on to them.

2. The salary cap. The NFL is set up in a way that each team is only allowed to spend a certain amount on its player payroll. For 2009 that cap was 128 million. So you can pay a guy whatever you want, but you only have 128 million to put an entire team together. If there were no cap you would likely see teams that just bought the best players, but the cap keeps that from happening.

[MetaMan]

Salary cap. Thread closed.

[Sly]

How many great players look great because they are on a shit team? Maybe that's more of a basketball thing...

[bronco67]

I like the salary cap. It would be pretty hollow for a team to win just because they bought the best money could buy. Building through the draft creates parity in the league.

Maybe the best players aren't always on the best team, but at least those players give those crappy teams a chance to be better. Look at the Texans and Arian Foster-- no way they would have all of those wins without him being the league leading rusher this season. Now that they have the running game situated, they can build around him. That's how you create a good team, not by just buying the best free agents. Baseball needs to have a cap also, so the Yankees can't go chasing after players like Cliff Lee just because they can afford it.

[pradaboy]

I did not know about the salary cap by the way, that is a good reason as well. No Real Madrid antics in the NFL then.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bronco67

I like the salary cap. It would be pretty hollow for a team to win just because they bought the best money could buy. Building through the draft creates parity in the league.

Maybe the best players aren't always on the best team, but at least those players give those crappy teams a chance to be better. Look at the Texans and Arian Foster-- no way they would have all of those wins without him being the league leading rusher this season. Now that they have the running game situated, they can build around him. That's how you create a good team, not by just buying the best free agents. Baseball needs to have a cap also, so the Yankees can't go chasing after players like Cliff Lee just because they can afford it.

baseball will never have a cap. So teams like my Rays will occasionally field good teams but will eventually have to let go of their best players beause they can't afford them like the Yankees and Red Sox. And this is why basbeall is not longer America's pastime and will soon fall behind even the NBA in the coming years.

The teams on top want to keep their advantage. Many of the teams on the botton do not want a cap either. A salary cap will also mean a salary FLOOR which will require teams to spend a minimum amount. Teams on the bottom either can't or won't want to do that. The NFL gets many more BILLIONS in TV contracts than baseball does. So it's easy to have a $150 mil cap. most TV money in baseball come form LOCAL TV. Obviously a team like the Yankees pull in much more TV revenue than say Cincincatti since NY is so much bigger than Cincy is.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Does the Bears vs Packers "Playoff" seem slightly ghey to anyone else?

ADG

I'm not a huge football fan. My father died when I was a baby, step father was older, from Europe, and had zero interest in American sports. I played basketball all through high school, but never football.

From my point of view it looks like over paid rich people chasing balls while wearing tight uniforms and then showering together.

[kane]

Originally Posted by GatorB

baseball will never have a cap. So teams like my Rays will occasionally field good teams but will eventually have to let go of their best players beause they can't afford them like the Yankees and Red Sox. And this is why basbeall is not longer America's pastime and will soon fall behind even the NBA in the coming years.

The teams on top want to keep their advantage. Many of the teams on the botton do not want a cap either. A salary cap will also mean a salary FLOOR which will require teams to spend a minimum amount. Teams on the bottom either can't or won't want to do that. The NFL gets many more BILLIONS in TV contracts than baseball does. So it's easy to have a $150 mil cap. most TV money in baseball come form LOCAL TV. Obviously a team like the Yankees pull in much more TV revenue than say Cincincatti since NY is so much bigger than Cincy is.

The sad thing about MLB is that there is now money in fielding a losing team. The league has a luxury tax and those teams that spend more than a set amount on payroll have to pay that tax. That money is then distributed to those teams who are in small markets and have small payrolls. The idea is that the money will help them afford some better players and some teams actually use it like that, but other teams like the Pirates and for years the Brewers would just pocket the cash so they have very little incentive to field a winning team.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by kane

The sad thing about MLB is that there is now money in fielding a losing team. The league has a luxury tax and those teams that spend more than a set amount on payroll have to pay that tax. That money is then distributed to those teams who are in small markets and have small payrolls. The idea is that the money will help them afford some better players and some teams actually use it like that, but other teams like the Pirates and for years the Brewers would just pocket the cash so they have very little incentive to field a winning team.

NEW YORK (AP) -Payrolls and average salaries for the opening day rosters of the 30 major league teams. Figures were obtained by The Associated Press from management and player sources and include salaries and pro-rated shares of signing bonuses. In some cases, parts of salaries deferred without interest are discounted to reflect present-day values.

Team Payroll Average

N.Y. Yankees $206,333,389 $8,253,336

Boston 162,747,333 5,611,977

Chicago Cubs 146,859,000 5,439,222

Philadelphia 141,927,381 5,068,835

New York Mets 132,701,445 5,103,902

Detroit 122,864,929 4,550,553

Chicago White Sox 108,273,197 4,164,354

Los Angeles Angels 105,013,667 3,621,161

Seattle 98,376,667 3,513,452

San Francisco 97,828,833 3,493,887

Minnesota 97,559,167 3,484,256

Los Angeles Dodgers 94,945,517 3,651,751

St. Louis 93,540,753 3,741,630

Houston 92,355,500 3,298,411

Atlanta 84,423,667 3,126,802

Colorado 84,227,000 2,904,379

Baltimore 81,612,500 3,138,942

Milwaukee 81,108,279 2,796,837

Cincinnati 72,386,544 2,784,098

Kansas City 72,267,710 2,491,990

Tampa Bay 71,923,471 2,663,832

Toronto 62,689,357 2,089,645

Washington 61,425,000 2,047,500

Cleveland 61,203,967 2,110,482

Arizona 60,718,167 2,335,314

Florida 55,641,500 2,060,796

Texas 55,250,545 1,905,191

Oakland 51,654,900 1,666,287

San Diego 37,799,300 1,453,819

Pittsburgh 34,943,000 1,294,185

The NY Yankees spent more than $40 million dollars than did the BoSox (the team with the second highest payroll), yet the team with the 10th highest payroll, the San Francisco Giants (at less than half of the payroll that the Yankees have), won the World Series.

The Texas Rangers who defeated the Yankees to win the AL Penant, were fourth from the bottom in payroll, at $55 million (nearly a quarter of the $206 million the Yankees paid on player salaries).

The $40 million more that the Yankkees paid than Boston on payroll, is more than the entire payroll of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

ADG

[kane]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

The $40 million more that the Yankkees paid than Boston on payroll, is more than the entire payroll of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

ADG

Last year the Yankees paid Alex Rodriguez 25 million dollars. They paid Derek Jetter 18 million. Combined those two guys made 43 million which is more than the entire payroll for the pirates and the padres and damn close to that of the A's. The Padres were actually in the playoff hunt until about a month left in the season so they made the best of their money, however in the off season their star first baseman Adrian Gonzales signed a huge free agent deal with the Red Sox so pretty much all the home run threat they had last year is now gone.

Sadly, that is what bottom teams now are. They are basically farm systems for the big boys. They develop players and then either lose them to free agency or trade them near the end of their contracts because they know they can't afford to keep them.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

The NY Yankees spent more than $40 million dollars than did the BoSox (the team with the second highest payroll), yet the team with the 10th highest payroll, the San Francisco Giants (at less than half of the payroll that the Yankees have), won the World Series.

The Texas Rangers who defeated the Yankees to win the AL Penant, were fourth from the bottom in payroll, at $55 million (nearly a quarter of the $206 million the Yankees paid on player salaries).

The $40 million more that the Yankkees paid than Boston on payroll, is more than the entire payroll of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

ADG

And the Pirates haven't had a winning season in 19 years.