If there was no salary cap?

[TKUHL]

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.

[scorp1974]

same...we wouldn't improve at all. Cowboys would be really good.

[THE PISTONS]

It would be like baseball and we'd be like the Reds. In baseball, basically the same 10 teams compete for a championship each year with the occasional small market team in the mix. But, even when those teams win, they usually have to gut the roster.

In the NFL, basically every team competes for a championship each year except the Bengals and Lions. Those 2 teams just want to win a playoff game.

[NKURyan]

(09-02-2019, 12:26 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It would be like baseball and we'd be like the Reds. In baseball, basically the same 10 teams compete for a championship each year with the occasional small market team in the mix. But, even when those teams win, they usually have to gut the roster.

In the NFL, basically every team competes for a championship each year except the Bengals and Lions. Those 2 teams just want to win a playoff game.

Cleveland, meanwhile, would be thrilled just to finish at .500.

[TKUHL]

(09-02-2019, 12:05 AM)scorp1974 Wrote: same...we wouldn't improve at all. Cowboys would be really good.

Lol true, for all the crap JJ gets at least you can tell he wants to put a winning team on the field.

[Luvnit2]

The reason they implemented the salary cap was to prevent small market teams with a small fan base b able t compete against the huge TV markets and rich owners.

The salary cap has only been around for 25 years.

[*Nately120*]

(09-02-2019, 12:34 AM)NKURyan Wrote: Cleveland, meanwhile, would be thrilled just to finish at .500.

Yes, the Bengals and Lions and Browns all haven't won a playoff game since the early 90s, but the Browns have changed ownership and the Bengals and the Lions are still owned and run by two very old people who inherited the team.  I'm not saying the Browns are going to win it all, but there was a time when the Saints and Patriots were god awful franchises before changing owners and getting things together.

Again, not sold on the Browns but they've changed owners, hired a GM with a proven track record, and done some other stuff that at least separates them from the Bengals and Lions.  Whether it pays off or not is the question, but it's not business as usual there, so who knows. If they still had Sashi as their GM and Hue as their HC and the 2019 version of Jake Delhomme at QB I'd be more confident they were going 2-14 again.

[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

[Sled21]

It wouldn't matter how wide Brown opened his wallet, he does not have the money to compete against a Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, etc. There is big money in the Brown family, but there is HUGE money driving other teams.....

[NKURyan]

(09-02-2019, 02:09 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Again, not sold on the Browns but they've changed owners, hired a GM with a proven track record, and done some other stuff that at least separates them from the Bengals and Lions.  Whether it pays off or not is the question, but it's not business as usual there, so who knows.  If they still had Sashi as their GM and Hue as their HC and the 2019 version of Jake Delhomme at QB I'd be more confident they were going 2-14 again.

Those changes the Browns made came about because while we were making the playoffs 6 out of 7 years with two divisional championships they were failing at a historically bad level. Yes we all know the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in decades but let's not pretend that they didn't have a pretty good run of success in there either even without the payoff. It's pretty easy to say "look at all the improving we're doing" when you were 0-16 two seasons ago.

I promise you that Browns and the organization as a whole are excited this year is simply for the prospect of finishing with a winning record for the first time in more than a decade. The thought of winning a playoff game is but a blip in the back of their minds at this point.

[Socal Bengals fan]

(09-02-2019, 12:34 AM)NKURyan Wrote: Cleveland, meanwhile, would be thrilled just to finish at .500.

You’ll be hearing a lot about Cleveland this year , they are going to be good.

[NKURyan]

(09-02-2019, 12:26 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: You’ll be hearing a lot about Cleveland this year , they are going to be good.

For reals this time!

[McC]

(09-02-2019, 04:54 PM)NKURyan Wrote: For reals this time!

Time will tell. 

How ironic is it that they finally get a good QB but he has to be a complete asshole who speaks first and thinks after and an all pro receiver who is a complete tool.  I'd say the biggest danger to them is themselves.  Remains to be seen how it plays out.

I'm sure they'll be better than us, or at least, they damn well should be, but they will have a very hard time being as good as people think they should be.  People in Cleveland are making SB reservations and they haven't even been a .500 team yet.  I think there's just as much of a chance that their journey will be fraught with peril as much as there is that it will be filled with glory. 

They look built to succeed but they will not be well equipped to handle failure at all.  They will never go 16-0, so let's see how Mighty Mouth and yellow hair handle the first loss.

People want to make a huge deal out of our guy never being a HC but are willing to overlook that same fact about their guy.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-02-2019, 01:15 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The reason they implemented the salary cap was to prevent small market teams with a small fan base b able t compete against the huge TV markets and rich owners.

The salary cap has only been around for 25 years.

Isn't it pretty fascinating that since modern free agency/salary cap implementation began...we haven't won a single playoff game?

While there is a salary cap for players...there's none for scouts and coaching staff. That's where we really skimp and it costs us dearly.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-02-2019, 02:09 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, the Bengals and Lions and Browns all haven't won a playoff game since the early 90s, but the Browns have changed ownership and the Bengals and the Lions are still owned and run by two very old people who inherited the team.  I'm not saying the Browns are going to win it all, but there was a time when the Saints and Patriots were god awful franchises before changing owners and getting things together.

Again, not sold on the Browns but they've changed owners, hired a GM with a proven track record, and done some other stuff that at least separates them from the Bengals and Lions.  Whether it pays off or not is the question, but it's not business as usual there, so who knows.  If they still had Sashi as their GM and Hue as their HC and the 2019 version of Jake Delhomme at QB I'd be more confident they were going 2-14 again.

Agreed. The Browns have inept ownership...BUT they atleast fire GM's/Coaches and try a new mix.

Here, we've had largely the same management for 28+ years of 0 playoff wins.

We make the playoffs 5 years in a row and we think the league is copying our model for success. 

[THE PISTONS]

(09-02-2019, 12:15 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Those changes the Browns made came about because while we were making the playoffs 6 out of 7 years with two divisional championships they were failing at a historically bad level. Yes we all know the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in decades but let's not pretend that they didn't have a pretty good run of success in there either even without the payoff. It's pretty easy to say "look at all the improving we're doing" when you were 0-16 two seasons ago.

I promise you that Browns and the organization as a whole are excited this year is simply for the prospect of finishing with a winning record for the first time in more than a decade. The thought of winning a playoff game is but a blip in the back of their minds at this point.

Success...even at our peak decade under the MB era equates to about being in the middle of the pick in wins/losses for the regular season.

Is that success? I guess when you were as bad as we were in the 90's that it is.

[NKURyan]

(09-02-2019, 05:55 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Success...even at our peak decade under the MB era equates to about being in the middle of the pick in wins/losses for the regular season.

Is that success? I guess when you were as bad as we were in the 90's that it is.

For as bad as the Bengals were in the 90s and early 2000s they were never as bad as the Browns have been over the last decade. The Browns have had 11 straight losing seasons - something the Bengals of the 90s never even came close to. And yet people here will gladly point to that franchise as being something to strive for. Yeah, sorry, I'll pass. A big LOL to everyone giving the Browns credit for frequently changing coaches/GMs... those frequent changes come become they've been terrible - not bad, terrible - under all of them, and even then they brought back a guy coming off an 0-16 season lol. Truly a visionary franchise!

Do I consider what the Bengals did from 2009 to 2015 success? Hell yeah I do! I don't really give a rat's ass how they stack up to the rest of the league - as a sports fan I want my teams to be good and they were, and I'm going to enjoy the times when that's actually the case because as a Cincinnati sports fan I've learned that those times aren't any guarantee. If you want to call the most prolonged period of success a failure, I mean okay, you're allowed to do that, I just can't see the point in it personally. You can end up disappointed if the Bengals "only" win 9 games this season and I'll have a blast enjoying the ride. And while it's easy to point to the franchise and say "well if that's the most successful run in franchise history it sure is a sorry franchise", well... duh we already know that, and you've made the choice to follow them anyways lol. Folks are welcome to be self-loathing fans if they want, but no sympathy is coming from me.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-02-2019, 07:03 PM)NKURyan Wrote: For as bad as the Bengals were in the 90s and early 2000s they were never as bad as the Browns have been over the last decade. The Browns have had 11 straight losing seasons - something the Bengals of the 90s never even came close to. And yet people here will gladly point to that franchise as being something to strive for. Yeah, sorry, I'll pass. A big LOL to everyone giving the Browns credit for frequently changing coaches/GMs... those frequent changes come become they've been terrible - not bad, terrible - under all of them, and even then they brought back a guy coming off an 0-16 season lol. Truly a visionary franchise!

Do I consider what the Bengals did from 2009 to 2015 success? Hell yeah I do! I don't really give a rat's ass how they stack up to the rest of the league - as a sports fan I want my teams to be good and they were, and I'm going to enjoy the times when that's actually the case because as a Cincinnati sports fan I've learned that those times aren't any guarantee. If you want to call the most prolonged period of success a failure, I mean okay, you're allowed to do that, I just can't see the point in it personally. You can end up disappointed if the Bengals "only" win 9 games this season and I'll have a blast enjoying the ride. And while it's easy to point to the franchise and say "well if that's the most successful run in franchise history it sure is a sorry franchise", well... duh we already know that, and you've made the choice to follow them anyways lol. Folks are welcome to be self-loathing fans if they want, but no sympathy is coming from me.

No doubt the Browns were terrible. You never get the stench of 0-16 off of you...unless you win a SB...which I think we all doubt they do.

re: Changing coaches and GM's - Most teams do it if they don't win playoff games in 3-4-5 years. The Bengals gave a coach what a decade and a half to win one. I wouldn't say that's a sound strategy too. We actually had a good roster 4-5 years ago, and wasted giving a new coach a shot with it. Now we hire a new coach, when some of our stars are advanced in age and with our offensive line and LB's a mess.

[*Nately120*]

(09-02-2019, 12:15 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Those changes the Browns made came about because while we were making the playoffs 6 out of 7 years with two divisional championships they were failing at a historically bad level. Yes we all know the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in decades but let's not pretend that they didn't have a pretty good run of success in there either even without the payoff. It's pretty easy to say "look at all the improving we're doing" when you were 0-16 two seasons ago.

I promise you that Browns and the organization as a whole are excited this year is simply for the prospect of finishing with a winning record for the first time in more than a decade. The thought of winning a playoff game is but a blip in the back of their minds at this point.

In all fairness, we're probably back to just hoping to break .500 given the dour past 3 seasons.  Meanwhile, until further notice a disastrous season in Pittsburgh is 8 wins.

[NKURyan]

(09-02-2019, 10:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness, we're probably back to just hoping to break .500 given the dour past 3 seasons.  Meanwhile, until further notice a disastrous season in Pittsburgh is 8 wins.

In all fairness I think *any* fanbase coming off of 3 straight losing season is back to just hoping to break .500.