If there was no salary cap?

[Whatever]

(09-02-2019, 12:03 AM)TKUHL Wrote: Just curious what everyone’s opinion is on this. I was thinking if there was no cap or restrictions on how much an owner can spend on players does anyone here honestly think Brown would be more or less active than he is now or has been in the past. It’s sickening to think about the money Brown brings in and still think, at least I do that Brown would not change a thing, may even be less active. I honestly don’t think it matters at all. If anything the cap is a nice excuse for cheap owners not to spend. I know there’s something about having to spend a certain amount but is it really ever enforced? Or are there too many loop holes allowing owners to hang onto money that should be spent.

I understand why there is a salary cap and I’m not posting this asking if there should or shouldn’t be one.

He would likely spend less with no salary cap.  The Bengals were 30th among NFL teams in total revenue in 2017.  The Bengals simply don't bring in enough money to compete with the high revenue teams, so there's no sense in spending more money just to lose and that's not to mention that the other owners could siphon money from their other businesses if needed.  His only chance to even be competitive would be to tank and get a generational talent at QB or move to another market where he can generate more revenue.

Mikey makes money off the Bengals, sure.  However, his yearly spending on player salaries is more than a lot of other teams that are generating more revenue.  If he was spending less compared to the rest of the league than the Bengals ranking in league revenue, then people would have a legitimate gripe, but he's not.  

A better complaint is where the money is spent.  For example, they gave Dennard a $7+ mil deal for this after they had already signed his replacement out of player loyalty due to his injury situation.  Now, he's on the PUP and they hypothetically could have gotten a good starting LB for that 2019 cap hit.f