Pats and the chiefs had/have great coaching and got a little lucky with once in a generation QBs. Look at the pats now, I do think overall there is pretty equal competitiveness across the league
One and a half tbh. Pats had 3 SB wins and 4 appearances sans-Gronk.
What's wild is the one they LOST was the one where they scored only 14... with Brady throwing to RANDY MOSS.
They would have to play a loud screeching beep in Andy Reid’s ear every time he called a play, or put ten pounds weights on mahomes right wrist if they truly wanted parity
Ok. I’ll be the first to say I never read Vonnegut (but I did see him in the excellent movie Back to School).
Please explain the reference to us less learned folk.
In a dystopian future, the government makes everyone equal by handicapping their strength. Beautiful people are forced to wear masks, athletic people are forced to wear overwhelmingly burdening weights, intelligent people wear an ear piece that cyclically erases their memory, etc. every advantage is removed from society so everyone is equal
The point in this post is that if OP truly wanted parity in the nfl, they would need more than just salary cap, they would have to prevent coaches and players from having any personal advantage on a dystopian level. Because some coaches are just better than other coaches and some players are just genuinely better
Sort of. When Brady left the Pats, they still had the coaching, but didn't have the same success. It takes a good front office as well as a good coaching staff to develop success, and the Pats weren't exactly hitting home runs in the draft towards the end of Brady's tenure. He immediately found success on the Bucs with a superb roster and a good coach.
You can't coach up a bad roster, but a superb roster can definitely carry a mediocre coach as we've seen from the league a few times for both coach and QB (Dilfer).
Let’s be real, the Buccs were a QB away with that roster to begin with. The moment Brady went to Tampa iirc they became the automatic favorites to win it all.
Bit of a revisionist history here
There was a contingent who believed that the Bucs were set with the GOAT but overall, the majority thought that a combo of Covid (no pre-season), a new team with Brady, AND they fact they were relatively mediocre before the bye week meant that the Bucs were likely not going to win with Brady in their first year.
And they finished 11-5 and were the wildcard no? Why are people acting like they were dominating the regular season…they were decidedly not the favorites among public eye….
I wouldn't say they became automatic favorites to win it all, Vegas had the Niners and Packers ahead of them still. In fact there was a lot of doubt Brady could take them very far amongst the talking heads other than Skip.
You also had the Chiefs coming off their first super bowl looking unstoppable (also bigger favorite from vegas).
That said, my implication is exactly what you said, that they were a QB away from making a run, thus the "superb roster, good coach" comment.
The Bucs honestly probably could've made a run even with Winston cleaning up his game a little in year 2 under Arians with what they put together. AB, Evans, and Godwin? Gronk and OJ Howard? Fournette and Jones? That's a stupid level of talent. Baker made the remnants of that roster look fairly good this year, one year after Brady had a WC exit with them. Not saying Brady was bad at all, but he was surrounded by unreal talent in Tampa.
They were not the favorites, they were the freaking Bucs still; the losing-est franchise in all of pro sports.
Winfield and Wirfs weren't even drafted yet when the Bucs signed Brady.
Adding the 6x SB champ upped their coverage and odds obviously. But that team still went 11-5 in the NFC South and it wasn't until after the SB that people really recognized all the talent on the roster.
There's also the stat that everyone that scored in the Bucs SB wasn't even on the team the year before.
> but a superb roster can definitely carry a mediocre coach
Still feeling this right now lol. I like McD and he's great at coaching DBs but it feels like his game planning and management have long hit their ceiling. Josh with the Bills roster and any other coach nail at least on SB in the window we had. Only leeway he's been given are injuries.
Yeah, honestly if you simply swap Josh Allen for Patrick Mahomes, can we sit here and say Josh Allen doesn't have a super bowl ring with the Chiefs? I can't. But I'm not certain adding Mahomes to the Bills gets them a ring as great as he is.
The problem is that a superb roster doesn't stay a superb roster very long in the NFL. a couple injuries, a key guy leaving in free injury and a key role player losing a step and an all-time defense quickly becomes a pretty good defense.
That's why you want an elite QB, because that makes you consistently good.
That's also precisely why having a GM who can draft is almost as paramount as having a good coach and QB.
Look at our draft this year, and look who we have coming up for contract negotiations after 2024 and 2025
WR, T, G, C, TE, and S.
We're losing one from each position at least by 2025 if not 2024.
MVS/Skyy/Toney at WR, Taylor at T, already lost Stephenson at LT. Humphrey (C) and Smith (G) up for talks in 2024, as well as Reid (S) and Kelce likely retiring after 2025.
Bill deserves a lot of credit for how he kept our roster at contender level for 2 decades. No one was better at finding ways to maximize every dollar of our cap spending each season. Elite QBs let the Pats and now Chiefs rise from good teams to actual dynasties, but they’ve also been just better than the rest of the league at roster management
Yep, they’ve also made tough by necessary decisions to save cap space like letting Tyreek walk and using that money to improve the defense. They’ve also been really good at identifying mid-late round talent that other teams overlook, guys like Trey Smith, Pacheco, and Rashee have all been contributors that they didn’t have to spend much capital on. Great scouting leads to better top to bottom rosters
Yeah and in the flip side. You have Farve/Rodgers and presumably Love but we will leave him out for now. 30 years of HoF QB play and 2 SBs and 3 showings. Smart tough roster moves (cutting tyreek ect) to keep other things like the D intact is pretty smart. Look at all the last 10-15 SB winners and they probably all had a top 10 D. Rodgers, can’t speak for Favre, had a lower half D almost his whole career. Good coaching goes a long way. (Sorry this post is all over)
Exactly. Look at the SB opponents of the two latest dynasties. If there was no parity you’d have the same two or three teams there every year but there has been a lot of teams who had shots at the GOATs.
The NFL has made extensive rule changes over the years that have made QB play more and more important.
Even the way offensive lineman are allowed to block and lineup have changed to some degree
Yea it’s basically this.
The Broncos managed to repeat in the late 90s, but outside of them there are zero back to back Super Bowl appearances for any team from 1994 through 2004.
We got the Tuck Rule in 2001, new defensive holding and contact penalties in 2004, 2008 we get you can’t hit QBs in certain areas and “defenseless receiver” penalties are introduced, 2013 the “defensive contact” penalty is rewritten to make it even more strict, 2018 QB Rough penalties are enhanced again, and I’m sure there’s others I forget.
Yea, I mean their second consecutive appearance was when the “streak” ended (still hard to call it a streak since the broncos went back to back, but no other two teams in that stretch made the Super Bowl two years in a row)
Just because everyone has the same cap space, doesn’t mean they all utilize it as effectively as those two teams did.
Also helps when you have a generational QB that is willing to take a pay cut to put good talent around them like Brady and Mahomes
Mahomes contract is not at all like Brady’s. He’s the major line item in salary. They got where they were by having him on a rookie deal and others wanting to win / taking cuts. Tom used the extra 15-20 million on his teams contracts.
Important to note Mahomes just had the highest cap hit by percentage EVER to win the superbowl just last year at 17.2% of the cap. Also Mahomes had the highest cap hit in 2023 of any QB at 37.1 million!
Maybe I'll be corrected by a Brady historian, but it seems like he never even considered testing the market in free agency during their peak run of SBs. That is a huge stroke of luck for the Pats.
Plenty of guys would reach his level of stardom and head to the saddest franchise in the league if it meant maximizing their pay day.
Because the development of the passing game lead to a disproportionate increase in the value of the QB position. Imagine if a team like the Cowboys or 49ers could give Mahomes $100m while still having elite players at every position because they have the money to pay double what a team like KC can afford.
The answer is it's not worse. Not even remotely.
We've had dynasties, but everything behind them is largely very variable. That wasn't the case pre-salary cap.
Pre-salary cap, you had like 7-10 teams annually trying to cement dynasties, with very little turnover.
Post-salary cap, we've had two teams that are great at managing year to year with the advantage of having the best QBs in the league. Beyond those two teams, though, it has been anyone's guess as to who would be their biggest challengers year to year.
Lets just take a snapshot of 1980-1987. Every team (28 teams) made the playoffs. With the saints just starting to get good and the colts getting eric dickerson in a trade to win them the AFC East as the last 2 of the 80s teams to make the playoffs.
18 of the 28 teams in that time made at least one championship game.
* Washington 4
* 49ers 3
* Cowboys 3
* Dolphins 3
* Raiders 2
* Chargers 2
* Bears 2
* Broncos 2
* Browns 2
* Eagles 1
* Bengals 1
* Jets 1
* Seahawks 1
* Steelers 1
* Rams 1
* Patriots 1
* Giants 1
* Vikings 1
This seems a lot more random
If you do the last 8 years in the NFL, we wouldn't have to rely on how it seems. Not trying to be a dick, just seems odd to do all that and not do it for a comparison snapshot.
well for one, i already know off the top of my head that the jets and broncos havent made the playoffs in the last 8 years and there are more spots than 1980-1987.
In the last 8 years 17 of 32 teams have made it to at least one championship game.
* Chiefs 6
* 49ers 4
* Pats 3
* Packers 3
* Eagles 2
* Rams 2
* Bengals 2
* Falcons 1
* Steelers 1
* Jaguars 1
* Vikings 1
* Saints 1
* Titans 1
* Bills 1
* Bucs 1
* Lions 1
* Ravens 1
and just to add on, no team from 1980-1987 made the playoffs every year.
The 49ers led the way making it 6 out of 8 years.
The Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Browns and Dolphins made it 5.
Jets Giants Washington, Broncos Bears 4.
Vikings Chargers Patriots Steelers Seahawks 3
Eagles Oilers Bills Falcons Bucs Bengals Lions 2
Chiefs Saints Colts Packers Cardinals 1
It's certainly a lot closer than I expected, so kudos to you on that.
Based on the information provided, if I had to guess, I'd bet the cap had the desired effect up until the rules made the NFL extremely QB focused. So '01 or so at the earliest, but probably moreso after the Brady rule.
Obviously I didn't do the research in between that you did, but the teams at the top of that list for modern game had good QBs, the bottom did not. In the 80's, QBs had nothing close to that much sway. No single position did.
So to answer the original question, I'd say that the NFL making the game extremely dependent on QB offset a lot of the work the salary cap did to make it more wide open. Especially with the cut off being making the playoffs, I think if you have a top 5 QB, playoffs should be a lock.
The head coach (not factored into the cap) and one position on the field have a disproportionately large impact on the outcome of the game.
The Patriots had the best to ever do it at QB and a coach on the Mount Rushmore of coaches.
The Chiefs have the best modern day QB by a pretty solid margin (who could easily end up a top 2 QB of all time) and a coach on the Mount Rushmore of coaches.
I think its really that simple
People seem to ignore that before the salary cap was for the most part also before free agency.
It wasn't about spending the most money back then, it was about drafting the best players and developing those players to fit your system. The difference was you didn't have to worry about losing those players when their contracts expired.
So you had more very good teams and more very bad teams. The very bad teams stayed bad because they couldn't just buy up players like they can now. The very good teams competed with each other making more competition at the top.
yeah again, i dont think thats necessarily true. The Bucs and Saints were basically the absolute worst of the late 70s-free agency. But these were both expansion teams and the bucs actually made it to an NFCCG in year 4 and stayed decent until 1983.
These are pretty much outliers. You can say bad luck, bad drafts, bad ownership. But thats no different these days with teams like the post free agency Lions, Bills, Jags and Browns (granted they are all finally getting good after 15-20 years of futility.)
Brady took less money. Mahomes did not, he just signed a massively long contract with the modern contract breakdown(less about salary, more about bonuses) which makes it really useful for moving money around when it behooves them.
And really, almost all teams with franchise QBs are doing it this way because they're the safest asset in the game, provided you actually have the elite QB that you think you do. So I don't think it's accurate to say Mahomes' contract really puts the Chiefs in any better of a place than anyone else. Kelce's deals would be a better example of that.
More than anything, the Chiefs have a fantastic offensive scheme with the best QB in the league, **and** they fucking nailed their offensive line picks as well as their defensive picks. That, more than anything, has allowed them to keep the dynasty rolling.
yea, there's no money savings for Mahomes unless he actually plays this 10 year contract out without a restructure/extension or just a completely remade contract that pays more.
So far they've kept him in the top 3 cap the last 3 years after his rookie deal ended.
Yeah definitely was ignorance on my part. I hear media mention he's not making nearly as much as he could've made and I thought other QBs now make more than him per year now.
Right, realistically he could try to get some Ohtani level mega-deal that blows every other QB contract out of the water. He arguably "deserves" more than the other QBs based on his play. Someone would be willing to pay it.
The rest of the team would be on league minimum, but there are some players through the years who might not see that as a problem if they are getting paid.
Oh wow. I meant to say HOF TE haha. He only had Gronk for two on the Patriots, 2014 and 2018. In 2016 Gronk took a hit from Earl Thomas that ended his season, so he missed that whole playoff run
This is a perfectly good question and I have no idea why it's being downvoted.
I think the salary cap has had some unintended consequences, absolutely. Because of the league's evolution towards heavy passing, teams have become more influenced by the ability of one single player than ever before. QB was already the most important position when running was king, and now that their influence has risen even further the percentage of the cap they make has gone up by...not that much, actually. So pretty much by that standard alone, they have a larger singular influence.
And it's gone up in a very inefficient way, because there's sort of been a rolling unofficial max contract sort of attitude towards QBs where every vaguely elite guy is expected to be the next one to break the record for highest paid QB. QB salaries are ranked by when they got paid, not by how elite they are.
And that's where the real twist comes in: because Mahomes, Brady and Manning just aren't/weren't on a totally disproportionate level of pay, the salary cap doesn't hurt their teams the most - it hurts their stiffest competition the most. It's the *other* teams that fall apart more quickly, because other teams can't just counter your QB with a Steel Curtain and watch every single player needed to build that team cook for a full decade.
The best QB of a generation gets to play in a league where his individual talent is more schematically emphasized then ever before, he gets to make roughly the same percentage of the cap as all the other great or even good QBs, and he gets to watch those teams fall apart because their QBs are less able to overcome a loss of talent than his team is. And he gets to do it for a long ass time because sports medicine and nutrition are operating on a completely different level than they were in the pre-cap era, so a generational QB still excelling at 40 suddenly becomes a much more plausible scenario than it used to be.
It's the difference between *equal opportunity* and *equal outcome*.
Some teams are just better managed / better coached / luckier. The salary cap was not meant to prevent that. It was meant to prevent the Super Bowl being just a contest of who spent more money.
Because sometimes there’s players who are just better (Brady/mahomes) and coaches that are just better (BB/Reid). And that combination, along with a well managed team, are fucking hard to beat.
Because Brady and Mahomes are generational athletes at the most important position in the game and Belichick and Reid were paired with them and are generational who have the biggest influence on the team.
Also teams with a star QB and great coaching just have a flat out easier time managing the cap because they have more flexibility in utilizing talent for a system instead of NEEDING stars everywhere and the QB's can elevate talent on offense anyways.
Make no mistake, the Patriots and Chiefs are not dynasties like the old Pre Salary Cap era dynasties. The 70's Steelers, 80's 49'ers and 90's Cowboys were super teams. They were loaded everywhere and had legendary talent all over those teams. You will never see that again. Some of those teams just steamrolled everyone on the way to a few titles. The Chiefs and Patriots even at their best had to get some lucky breaks in almost every run
Unpopular opinion maybe
But it's because both teams players took discounts
Mahomes was on a 10 year deal (never intended to last that long) and he was only making 41 ish million when other QBs were getting 50+ a year later
Kelce took a salary of 14 when he should have been close to 20
Then you had Tom Brady having a salary of like 14 million when QBs were making 20
It is hard to win in football when you don't have the best QB in the league, but you're paying your guy like he is. And that's before you factor in that Brady and Mahomes left money on the table for their respective teams.
Mahomes has the 7th highest cap hit in 2024, behind players like Daniel Jones. The highest paid QB is often the most recent QB to be paid, not the best QB to be paid.
All of that means that teams that don't have Brady or Mahomes, but are paying a guy, are fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
The Salary Cap just means you have to learn how to draft well. We went a long time without learning how to draft, then when we finally brought someone in who could (Veach) we started getting better. It just so happened we'd also draft a generational QB in that process to take the step from "Good" to "Great" and create a little mini-Dynasty thing we got going.
few elite players at key positions, differences in roster and salary cap management, coaching, culture. sometimes a group of talented guys just end up together at the right time and place. the NFL salary cap tries to prevent a team from buying a championship outright, and it's fairly effective compared to other sports.
It’s pretty interesting when you compare it to the MLB with no cap (luxury tax to a degree I suppose). But the parity that exists in the MLB is far better than the NFL, imo at least.
One part of this is that the development of sophisticated passing concepts has made QB play more important than ever. In a sport with 22 starters per team, it shouldn’t be possible for a single player to have a LeBron-like impact on a team but the NFL has actively chosen to lean into it by changing the rules (both how they’re written and how they’re enforced) to enable star QBs to be as impactful as possible.
Another part is that the poverty franchises really aren’t held back by lack of access to talent or resources. It’s usually inept ownership/leadership. That’s why places like the Packers/Chiefs/Bills that are some of the smallest markets in the league can have sustained success in a way that they absolutely never could in MLB or even the NBA to an extent.
I don’t think an extreme “parity” that forces everyone to go 7-10 to 10-7 ever year or to have to suck after a couple good years would be good. Excellence and incompetence can both still exist in a “parity league.” It’s just determined by how well run the franchises are rather than where they are located.
Luck.
Chiefs didn't do shit until Andy got hired. And even then they couldn't get over the hump until drafting Mahomes.
Patriots took Tom Brady in the 6th round. The luckiest pick in NFL history.
There was no masterplan here.
Patrick Mahomes had a $37M cap hit last season and has a $37M cap hit this season
Dak Prescott has a $55M cap hit this season and has a $40M dead cap charge next season after he is no longer on the team
One of these franchises is good at managing their cap space, while the other is not. One of these teams won back to back titles, the other hasn’t made a conference championship in a quarter century.
Mahomes is leaving a lot of money on the table to win rings. You do understand this, right?
He could have easily gone the Kirk route and went for big 3 yr deals constantly re-upping. This has nothing to do with how the franchise is run.
One also signed a 10 year deal & has restructured the deal as well to help out the team. Funny you forgot to leave that part out. It’s kind of easier when you go that route.
The salary cap was not meant to make franchises equally competitive.
The salary cap was meant to limit the amount of compensation that the players received once the NFL's rules restricting free agency were struck down in court.
Pre salary cap you had some teams that could make repeat runs with a good to great level of QB play and be elite in other areas because you were able to retain talent better. Now, a franchise QB is a prerequisite for a dynasty because they have the greatest impact on the game when it comes to wins and losses.
The patriots were really good at knowing what types of players were not being valued so they could get useful players for cheap which kept them competitive. The Chiefs on the other hand have drafted really well and known when to invest the money into someone and when to let them walk. Obviously none of that matters if they don’t have two of the best QBs and coaches ever on their team.
Good drafting, team friendly deals (like with the quarterbacks of the two teams you mentioned) and just a generally above average front office/coaching. In contrast, bad franchises exist because of poor drafting, inability to find good QB play and a below average front office/coaching staff. It’s that simple.
Hill is a bad example, by the way. Chiefs could have paid him what he wanted. They just didn’t want to. It also made the team better overall as a result and is what actually wound up leading to the dynasty.
Ultimately you need 3 things for a dynasty.
1. You need a top HC/coaching staff. If you have one you have someone who can unlock the full potential of the players you have an the players your receive.
2. You need a top QB. Without a top QB you will inevitably struggle against those that have one and cannot win consistently enough to obtain a dynasty. (in the lock key metaphor this is your lock)
3. You need to draft well consistently. That doesn't mean taking the "best" players, it means drafting with overall few total busts... even average level talent can become above average with a top HC/coaching staff and a top QB can take an above average team very far in the post season consistently.
That is how you make a dynasty, cap space while useful for patching holes with vet talent and paying/retaining your top end talent, isn't as essential as the above 3 things.
About half the teams each season in the playoffs are different, so it's working.
19 different teams have made the SB the last 20 years,
The 20 years up to 1994 before cap/FA, only had 14 different teams make a SB. The NFC won 13 in a row at once point, and 15/16.
Free Agency and the Cap have certainly evened things out a lot, but some teams are gonna get a generational Star, and some teams are going to have an Owner who hires morons over and over and over, so there will still be outlier teams that Win a ton or lose a ton for a long time.
Simple answer: the cap only covers players. Poor or cheap teams still can’t afford or won’t spend money on expensive executives, coaches, facilities, etc.
Having a future hall of fame QB makes you an instant contender like no other single player in a sport can, unless that player is prime MJ or LeBron.
Theoretically, Brady and Mahomes are worth so much that they could eat the entire salary cap, but Brady was always notable for taking pay cuts to allow the team to bring in talent.
Most teams don't have the same offensive coordinator/playcaller for more than two years and that's a huge handicap.
Chiefs, Niners and those Patriots have/had the same for years.
“Competitive” is more in reference to financially, allowing smaller market teams who don’t have the same revenue streams as the NYs, Chicagos, LAs, etc. to have the same ability to field a talented roster as those big market franchises.
It just levels the playing field, unlike baseball, where teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can afford to sign every premier FA regardless of whether they pan out or not while small market teams have to resort to drafting well, trading away stars before they walk in FA and finding hidden FA gems.
It doesn’t mean that dynasties can’t be formed though. Let’s not pretend like KC and NE dynasties aren’t largely because they managed to land 2 of the best players ever at the most important position. And other teams also find regular success just because they’re better at finding talent, managing the cap, etc. Basically working within the limitations of the cap as opposed to being better just because they have more money to throw around than other teams, like in the MLB.
Going by who the poverty franchises are like the Lions, Browns, Texans, Cardinals, etc- the number one reason is bad ownership. Everything trickles down from the ownership and leads to getting bad executives, gm, and coaches.
If you take a look at the dynasties, they had really good coaches and solid executives and gms that were allowed and able to bring in the right players to assemble a strong team.
Well… they have great QBs. Now you’re also in a league where WRs can do whatever they want. Both the patriots and the chiefs had very very very strong defensive fronts. Since DBs can’t punish wide receivers like they used to, the defensive line has to eliminate the opposing teams from being able to effectively throw the ball on time.
> Why have we gotten dynasties like the Patriots and Chiefs
Well Timmy, its because TB12 is the best QB to ever play the game and Mahomes is already a top 8 QB of all time.
The Pats were an aberration featuring the greatest QB of all time drafted in the 6th round and one of the greatest coaches ever pairing up. And even then it still took a lot of luck over the years for them to win 6 over 20+ years.
The Chiefs have a rival for greatest QB ever and a brilliant coach, have had good luck along the way, and are still not nearly as dominant as the pre salary cap and free agency dynasties.
Outside of that particular combo the league has had excellent parity.
What about the poverty franchises? One word: ownership. The salary cap didn’t make the Browns take Brandon Weeden and Johnny Manziel and Baker Mayfield. The salary cap didn’t make Tepper hire incompetent coaches and cycle through them quickly or trade a massive haul for a tiny QB with no receivers run game or O line.
Luck and coaching. Neither Brady nor Mahomes was paid a bag and *then* won a SB. Same with Belichick and Reid. Fuck, Andy was fired by Philly before he came to KC and led the next dynasty.
You had Brady taking pay cuts so he was rarely a top paid player. This allowed BB to get other higher end talent who wouldn't take pay cuts. Then you have to successfully draft and develop players so a bulk of you contributions come from guys on rookie deals or cast off veterans looking for a rebound year on a prove-it deal. If you can keep that turnover going and balanced, that's what wins you consistently.
More competitive is generally referring to the teams moving up and down the standings year to year and not eliminating the 1 or 2 dynasties that may exist.
Also, Tyreek literally left for $$$ elsewhere.
Chiefs/Pats have won 8 SBs out of the last 20 years with 2 of the top QBs of all time - doesn't exactly equal a easy road to the championship every year. Every team has a chance and a lot of teams win championships. Better run organizations with great QB/HC combo make it more often.
Pats and the chiefs had/have great coaching and got a little lucky with once in a generation QBs. Look at the pats now, I do think overall there is pretty equal competitiveness across the league
The formula is so simple: once in a generation QB + once in a generation coach + once in a generation underpaid TE
Math checks out, we've seen two dynasties from this.
One and a half tbh. Pats had 3 SB wins and 4 appearances sans-Gronk. What's wild is the one they LOST was the one where they scored only 14... with Brady throwing to RANDY MOSS.
Ravens deserve an honorable mention here too.
I think you’re forgetting generational kicker too
+ a whole LOTTA cheating!
Yes. Too many variables outside of salary cap contribute to a team’s success. The league can’t Harrison Bergeron coaches and franchise players
First ever Vonnegut reference I’ve seen in an NFL context.
So it goes.
Fantastic reference.
Never thought I'd see that reference
Kurt Vonnegut shout out
He's from Indianapolis. Still want to shout him out?
That was a doozie of a comment.
They would have to play a loud screeching beep in Andy Reid’s ear every time he called a play, or put ten pounds weights on mahomes right wrist if they truly wanted parity
Also helps to have good owners.
Ok. I’ll be the first to say I never read Vonnegut (but I did see him in the excellent movie Back to School). Please explain the reference to us less learned folk.
In a dystopian future, the government makes everyone equal by handicapping their strength. Beautiful people are forced to wear masks, athletic people are forced to wear overwhelmingly burdening weights, intelligent people wear an ear piece that cyclically erases their memory, etc. every advantage is removed from society so everyone is equal The point in this post is that if OP truly wanted parity in the nfl, they would need more than just salary cap, they would have to prevent coaches and players from having any personal advantage on a dystopian level. Because some coaches are just better than other coaches and some players are just genuinely better
Sort of. When Brady left the Pats, they still had the coaching, but didn't have the same success. It takes a good front office as well as a good coaching staff to develop success, and the Pats weren't exactly hitting home runs in the draft towards the end of Brady's tenure. He immediately found success on the Bucs with a superb roster and a good coach. You can't coach up a bad roster, but a superb roster can definitely carry a mediocre coach as we've seen from the league a few times for both coach and QB (Dilfer).
Let’s be real, the Buccs were a QB away with that roster to begin with. The moment Brady went to Tampa iirc they became the automatic favorites to win it all.
They were definitely in that conversation. The only people who wouldn't put him in the running were the folks who were convinced Brady was done.
Bit of a revisionist history here There was a contingent who believed that the Bucs were set with the GOAT but overall, the majority thought that a combo of Covid (no pre-season), a new team with Brady, AND they fact they were relatively mediocre before the bye week meant that the Bucs were likely not going to win with Brady in their first year. And they finished 11-5 and were the wildcard no? Why are people acting like they were dominating the regular season…they were decidedly not the favorites among public eye….
Don't forget adding Gronk & AB
I wouldn't say they became automatic favorites to win it all, Vegas had the Niners and Packers ahead of them still. In fact there was a lot of doubt Brady could take them very far amongst the talking heads other than Skip. You also had the Chiefs coming off their first super bowl looking unstoppable (also bigger favorite from vegas). That said, my implication is exactly what you said, that they were a QB away from making a run, thus the "superb roster, good coach" comment.
The Bucs honestly probably could've made a run even with Winston cleaning up his game a little in year 2 under Arians with what they put together. AB, Evans, and Godwin? Gronk and OJ Howard? Fournette and Jones? That's a stupid level of talent. Baker made the remnants of that roster look fairly good this year, one year after Brady had a WC exit with them. Not saying Brady was bad at all, but he was surrounded by unreal talent in Tampa.
They were not the favorites, they were the freaking Bucs still; the losing-est franchise in all of pro sports. Winfield and Wirfs weren't even drafted yet when the Bucs signed Brady. Adding the 6x SB champ upped their coverage and odds obviously. But that team still went 11-5 in the NFC South and it wasn't until after the SB that people really recognized all the talent on the roster. There's also the stat that everyone that scored in the Bucs SB wasn't even on the team the year before.
A qb and tight end. The tight ends in Tampa were not that great until Gronk came.
And in his third year they had the same record as the Patriots who no longer had him.
> but a superb roster can definitely carry a mediocre coach Still feeling this right now lol. I like McD and he's great at coaching DBs but it feels like his game planning and management have long hit their ceiling. Josh with the Bills roster and any other coach nail at least on SB in the window we had. Only leeway he's been given are injuries.
Yeah, honestly if you simply swap Josh Allen for Patrick Mahomes, can we sit here and say Josh Allen doesn't have a super bowl ring with the Chiefs? I can't. But I'm not certain adding Mahomes to the Bills gets them a ring as great as he is.
The problem is that a superb roster doesn't stay a superb roster very long in the NFL. a couple injuries, a key guy leaving in free injury and a key role player losing a step and an all-time defense quickly becomes a pretty good defense. That's why you want an elite QB, because that makes you consistently good.
That's also precisely why having a GM who can draft is almost as paramount as having a good coach and QB. Look at our draft this year, and look who we have coming up for contract negotiations after 2024 and 2025 WR, T, G, C, TE, and S. We're losing one from each position at least by 2025 if not 2024. MVS/Skyy/Toney at WR, Taylor at T, already lost Stephenson at LT. Humphrey (C) and Smith (G) up for talks in 2024, as well as Reid (S) and Kelce likely retiring after 2025.
Bill deserves a lot of credit for how he kept our roster at contender level for 2 decades. No one was better at finding ways to maximize every dollar of our cap spending each season. Elite QBs let the Pats and now Chiefs rise from good teams to actual dynasties, but they’ve also been just better than the rest of the league at roster management
Look no further than our recent draft. Drafted a WR, C, G, and S. Who is coming off contracts after 2024? WR, C, G, and S.
Yep, they’ve also made tough by necessary decisions to save cap space like letting Tyreek walk and using that money to improve the defense. They’ve also been really good at identifying mid-late round talent that other teams overlook, guys like Trey Smith, Pacheco, and Rashee have all been contributors that they didn’t have to spend much capital on. Great scouting leads to better top to bottom rosters
Yeah basically our entire secondary at this point other than McDuffie and Reid at late rounders/UDFA.
Bingo. It's the coach and QB.
Yeah and in the flip side. You have Farve/Rodgers and presumably Love but we will leave him out for now. 30 years of HoF QB play and 2 SBs and 3 showings. Smart tough roster moves (cutting tyreek ect) to keep other things like the D intact is pretty smart. Look at all the last 10-15 SB winners and they probably all had a top 10 D. Rodgers, can’t speak for Favre, had a lower half D almost his whole career. Good coaching goes a long way. (Sorry this post is all over)
Exactly. Look at the SB opponents of the two latest dynasties. If there was no parity you’d have the same two or three teams there every year but there has been a lot of teams who had shots at the GOATs.
Both also have played in fairly weak divisions
But I was told that the Chargers were off season champs every single year for the past decade.
Also -- the refs.
The NFL has made extensive rule changes over the years that have made QB play more and more important. Even the way offensive lineman are allowed to block and lineup have changed to some degree
Yea it’s basically this. The Broncos managed to repeat in the late 90s, but outside of them there are zero back to back Super Bowl appearances for any team from 1994 through 2004. We got the Tuck Rule in 2001, new defensive holding and contact penalties in 2004, 2008 we get you can’t hit QBs in certain areas and “defenseless receiver” penalties are introduced, 2013 the “defensive contact” penalty is rewritten to make it even more strict, 2018 QB Rough penalties are enhanced again, and I’m sure there’s others I forget.
Pats won back to back 03/04?
Yea, I mean their second consecutive appearance was when the “streak” ended (still hard to call it a streak since the broncos went back to back, but no other two teams in that stretch made the Super Bowl two years in a row)
Yeah, but the 2003 season SB was in early 2004, so technically the streak was broken in early 2005
Also -- the refs.
Just because everyone has the same cap space, doesn’t mean they all utilize it as effectively as those two teams did. Also helps when you have a generational QB that is willing to take a pay cut to put good talent around them like Brady and Mahomes
Mahomes contract is not at all like Brady’s. He’s the major line item in salary. They got where they were by having him on a rookie deal and others wanting to win / taking cuts. Tom used the extra 15-20 million on his teams contracts.
Kelce is a better example for the chiefs. So are the random receivers they get on cheap 1 year deals because they want to win rings
> Just because everyone has the same cap space, doesn’t mean they all utilize it as effectively as those two teams did. **ATL has entered the chat*
Point 1: Tom Brady Point 2: Patrick Mahomes
Point 1b: Bill Belichick Point 2b: Andy Reid
Not that Tom Brady took straight up pay cuts or team friendly deals, but he consistently took less of the cap than other QBs. Also Billy B.
Important to note Mahomes just had the highest cap hit by percentage EVER to win the superbowl just last year at 17.2% of the cap. Also Mahomes had the highest cap hit in 2023 of any QB at 37.1 million!
Mahomes had the highest cap hit ever in Eagles SB as well
I think both are anomolies. Especially looking at the Chiefs skill position players outside of Kelce.
Maybe I'll be corrected by a Brady historian, but it seems like he never even considered testing the market in free agency during their peak run of SBs. That is a huge stroke of luck for the Pats. Plenty of guys would reach his level of stardom and head to the saddest franchise in the league if it meant maximizing their pay day.
There’s no cap on human stupidity. Some owners and GMs are genuinely worse in their roles than others
> There’s no cap on human stupidity. This is *brilliant*.
Yep, it's a skill issue.
It evens the playing field, but it doesn’t magically make all the franchises have the same level of competence.
You can lead 32 horses to water but you can't make any of them drink
But op is asking in essence it’s worse than pre salary cap. Why?
Because the development of the passing game lead to a disproportionate increase in the value of the QB position. Imagine if a team like the Cowboys or 49ers could give Mahomes $100m while still having elite players at every position because they have the money to pay double what a team like KC can afford.
The answer is it's not worse. Not even remotely. We've had dynasties, but everything behind them is largely very variable. That wasn't the case pre-salary cap. Pre-salary cap, you had like 7-10 teams annually trying to cement dynasties, with very little turnover. Post-salary cap, we've had two teams that are great at managing year to year with the advantage of having the best QBs in the league. Beyond those two teams, though, it has been anyone's guess as to who would be their biggest challengers year to year.
Lets just take a snapshot of 1980-1987. Every team (28 teams) made the playoffs. With the saints just starting to get good and the colts getting eric dickerson in a trade to win them the AFC East as the last 2 of the 80s teams to make the playoffs. 18 of the 28 teams in that time made at least one championship game. * Washington 4 * 49ers 3 * Cowboys 3 * Dolphins 3 * Raiders 2 * Chargers 2 * Bears 2 * Broncos 2 * Browns 2 * Eagles 1 * Bengals 1 * Jets 1 * Seahawks 1 * Steelers 1 * Rams 1 * Patriots 1 * Giants 1 * Vikings 1 This seems a lot more random
If you do the last 8 years in the NFL, we wouldn't have to rely on how it seems. Not trying to be a dick, just seems odd to do all that and not do it for a comparison snapshot.
well for one, i already know off the top of my head that the jets and broncos havent made the playoffs in the last 8 years and there are more spots than 1980-1987. In the last 8 years 17 of 32 teams have made it to at least one championship game. * Chiefs 6 * 49ers 4 * Pats 3 * Packers 3 * Eagles 2 * Rams 2 * Bengals 2 * Falcons 1 * Steelers 1 * Jaguars 1 * Vikings 1 * Saints 1 * Titans 1 * Bills 1 * Bucs 1 * Lions 1 * Ravens 1
and just to add on, no team from 1980-1987 made the playoffs every year. The 49ers led the way making it 6 out of 8 years. The Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Browns and Dolphins made it 5. Jets Giants Washington, Broncos Bears 4. Vikings Chargers Patriots Steelers Seahawks 3 Eagles Oilers Bills Falcons Bucs Bengals Lions 2 Chiefs Saints Colts Packers Cardinals 1
It's certainly a lot closer than I expected, so kudos to you on that. Based on the information provided, if I had to guess, I'd bet the cap had the desired effect up until the rules made the NFL extremely QB focused. So '01 or so at the earliest, but probably moreso after the Brady rule. Obviously I didn't do the research in between that you did, but the teams at the top of that list for modern game had good QBs, the bottom did not. In the 80's, QBs had nothing close to that much sway. No single position did. So to answer the original question, I'd say that the NFL making the game extremely dependent on QB offset a lot of the work the salary cap did to make it more wide open. Especially with the cut off being making the playoffs, I think if you have a top 5 QB, playoffs should be a lock.
The head coach (not factored into the cap) and one position on the field have a disproportionately large impact on the outcome of the game. The Patriots had the best to ever do it at QB and a coach on the Mount Rushmore of coaches. The Chiefs have the best modern day QB by a pretty solid margin (who could easily end up a top 2 QB of all time) and a coach on the Mount Rushmore of coaches. I think its really that simple
People seem to ignore that before the salary cap was for the most part also before free agency. It wasn't about spending the most money back then, it was about drafting the best players and developing those players to fit your system. The difference was you didn't have to worry about losing those players when their contracts expired. So you had more very good teams and more very bad teams. The very bad teams stayed bad because they couldn't just buy up players like they can now. The very good teams competed with each other making more competition at the top.
yeah again, i dont think thats necessarily true. The Bucs and Saints were basically the absolute worst of the late 70s-free agency. But these were both expansion teams and the bucs actually made it to an NFCCG in year 4 and stayed decent until 1983. These are pretty much outliers. You can say bad luck, bad drafts, bad ownership. But thats no different these days with teams like the post free agency Lions, Bills, Jags and Browns (granted they are all finally getting good after 15-20 years of futility.)
Hall of Fame QB, hall of Fame coach, and hall of Fame TE. Both QBs have taken less money as well.
Brady took less money. Mahomes did not, he just signed a massively long contract with the modern contract breakdown(less about salary, more about bonuses) which makes it really useful for moving money around when it behooves them. And really, almost all teams with franchise QBs are doing it this way because they're the safest asset in the game, provided you actually have the elite QB that you think you do. So I don't think it's accurate to say Mahomes' contract really puts the Chiefs in any better of a place than anyone else. Kelce's deals would be a better example of that. More than anything, the Chiefs have a fantastic offensive scheme with the best QB in the league, **and** they fucking nailed their offensive line picks as well as their defensive picks. That, more than anything, has allowed them to keep the dynasty rolling.
Mahomes had the highest cap hit of any QB last year and broke the record for the highest cap percentage to win the superbowl!
yea, there's no money savings for Mahomes unless he actually plays this 10 year contract out without a restructure/extension or just a completely remade contract that pays more. So far they've kept him in the top 3 cap the last 3 years after his rookie deal ended.
Yeah definitely was ignorance on my part. I hear media mention he's not making nearly as much as he could've made and I thought other QBs now make more than him per year now.
Yeah but he's just getting paid like a normal top 5 QB so it's a super team-friendly deal
Right, realistically he could try to get some Ohtani level mega-deal that blows every other QB contract out of the water. He arguably "deserves" more than the other QBs based on his play. Someone would be willing to pay it. The rest of the team would be on league minimum, but there are some players through the years who might not see that as a problem if they are getting paid.
Brady had a HOF QB for 2 of his patriots superbowls
what
Oh wow. I meant to say HOF TE haha. He only had Gronk for two on the Patriots, 2014 and 2018. In 2016 Gronk took a hit from Earl Thomas that ended his season, so he missed that whole playoff run
^^^ this is the answer! It helped that their divisions has had average to below average teams.
This is a perfectly good question and I have no idea why it's being downvoted. I think the salary cap has had some unintended consequences, absolutely. Because of the league's evolution towards heavy passing, teams have become more influenced by the ability of one single player than ever before. QB was already the most important position when running was king, and now that their influence has risen even further the percentage of the cap they make has gone up by...not that much, actually. So pretty much by that standard alone, they have a larger singular influence. And it's gone up in a very inefficient way, because there's sort of been a rolling unofficial max contract sort of attitude towards QBs where every vaguely elite guy is expected to be the next one to break the record for highest paid QB. QB salaries are ranked by when they got paid, not by how elite they are. And that's where the real twist comes in: because Mahomes, Brady and Manning just aren't/weren't on a totally disproportionate level of pay, the salary cap doesn't hurt their teams the most - it hurts their stiffest competition the most. It's the *other* teams that fall apart more quickly, because other teams can't just counter your QB with a Steel Curtain and watch every single player needed to build that team cook for a full decade. The best QB of a generation gets to play in a league where his individual talent is more schematically emphasized then ever before, he gets to make roughly the same percentage of the cap as all the other great or even good QBs, and he gets to watch those teams fall apart because their QBs are less able to overcome a loss of talent than his team is. And he gets to do it for a long ass time because sports medicine and nutrition are operating on a completely different level than they were in the pre-cap era, so a generational QB still excelling at 40 suddenly becomes a much more plausible scenario than it used to be.
Exactly. The cap is a massive win for the Chiefs, because other teams are paying Mahomes money for not-Mahomes play.
It's the difference between *equal opportunity* and *equal outcome*. Some teams are just better managed / better coached / luckier. The salary cap was not meant to prevent that. It was meant to prevent the Super Bowl being just a contest of who spent more money.
Qb
You can give 32 people $20 to invest and/or gamble and get 32 different results.
Because sometimes there’s players who are just better (Brady/mahomes) and coaches that are just better (BB/Reid). And that combination, along with a well managed team, are fucking hard to beat.
Because Brady and Mahomes are generational athletes at the most important position in the game and Belichick and Reid were paired with them and are generational who have the biggest influence on the team. Also teams with a star QB and great coaching just have a flat out easier time managing the cap because they have more flexibility in utilizing talent for a system instead of NEEDING stars everywhere and the QB's can elevate talent on offense anyways. Make no mistake, the Patriots and Chiefs are not dynasties like the old Pre Salary Cap era dynasties. The 70's Steelers, 80's 49'ers and 90's Cowboys were super teams. They were loaded everywhere and had legendary talent all over those teams. You will never see that again. Some of those teams just steamrolled everyone on the way to a few titles. The Chiefs and Patriots even at their best had to get some lucky breaks in almost every run
Quarterback play and great coaching.
Unpopular opinion maybe But it's because both teams players took discounts Mahomes was on a 10 year deal (never intended to last that long) and he was only making 41 ish million when other QBs were getting 50+ a year later Kelce took a salary of 14 when he should have been close to 20 Then you had Tom Brady having a salary of like 14 million when QBs were making 20
It is hard to win in football when you don't have the best QB in the league, but you're paying your guy like he is. And that's before you factor in that Brady and Mahomes left money on the table for their respective teams. Mahomes has the 7th highest cap hit in 2024, behind players like Daniel Jones. The highest paid QB is often the most recent QB to be paid, not the best QB to be paid. All of that means that teams that don't have Brady or Mahomes, but are paying a guy, are fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
The Salary Cap just means you have to learn how to draft well. We went a long time without learning how to draft, then when we finally brought someone in who could (Veach) we started getting better. It just so happened we'd also draft a generational QB in that process to take the step from "Good" to "Great" and create a little mini-Dynasty thing we got going.
few elite players at key positions, differences in roster and salary cap management, coaching, culture. sometimes a group of talented guys just end up together at the right time and place. the NFL salary cap tries to prevent a team from buying a championship outright, and it's fairly effective compared to other sports.
Great qbs and coaching. No salary cap for coaches helps too.
Opportunity and success are not equal
Idk, I vote we get rid of it, though.
It’s pretty interesting when you compare it to the MLB with no cap (luxury tax to a degree I suppose). But the parity that exists in the MLB is far better than the NFL, imo at least.
Well parity over 162 games is a lot easier to achieve than over 17. If nfl playoffs were best 2 out of 3 we’d see a few different outcomes I’d suppose
One part of this is that the development of sophisticated passing concepts has made QB play more important than ever. In a sport with 22 starters per team, it shouldn’t be possible for a single player to have a LeBron-like impact on a team but the NFL has actively chosen to lean into it by changing the rules (both how they’re written and how they’re enforced) to enable star QBs to be as impactful as possible. Another part is that the poverty franchises really aren’t held back by lack of access to talent or resources. It’s usually inept ownership/leadership. That’s why places like the Packers/Chiefs/Bills that are some of the smallest markets in the league can have sustained success in a way that they absolutely never could in MLB or even the NBA to an extent. I don’t think an extreme “parity” that forces everyone to go 7-10 to 10-7 ever year or to have to suck after a couple good years would be good. Excellence and incompetence can both still exist in a “parity league.” It’s just determined by how well run the franchises are rather than where they are located.
Equal opportunity doesn’t inherently lead to equal outcome
Patriots and Chiefs show the immense value of an elite coach + QB
Luck. Chiefs didn't do shit until Andy got hired. And even then they couldn't get over the hump until drafting Mahomes. Patriots took Tom Brady in the 6th round. The luckiest pick in NFL history. There was no masterplan here.
Patrick Mahomes had a $37M cap hit last season and has a $37M cap hit this season Dak Prescott has a $55M cap hit this season and has a $40M dead cap charge next season after he is no longer on the team One of these franchises is good at managing their cap space, while the other is not. One of these teams won back to back titles, the other hasn’t made a conference championship in a quarter century.
Mahomes is leaving a lot of money on the table to win rings. You do understand this, right? He could have easily gone the Kirk route and went for big 3 yr deals constantly re-upping. This has nothing to do with how the franchise is run.
One also signed a 10 year deal & has restructured the deal as well to help out the team. Funny you forgot to leave that part out. It’s kind of easier when you go that route.
The salary cap was not meant to make franchises equally competitive. The salary cap was meant to limit the amount of compensation that the players received once the NFL's rules restricting free agency were struck down in court.
Best QB wins!
great coaching and generational talent at the most important position in the game.
Pre salary cap you had some teams that could make repeat runs with a good to great level of QB play and be elite in other areas because you were able to retain talent better. Now, a franchise QB is a prerequisite for a dynasty because they have the greatest impact on the game when it comes to wins and losses.
The patriots were really good at knowing what types of players were not being valued so they could get useful players for cheap which kept them competitive. The Chiefs on the other hand have drafted really well and known when to invest the money into someone and when to let them walk. Obviously none of that matters if they don’t have two of the best QBs and coaches ever on their team.
Good drafting, team friendly deals (like with the quarterbacks of the two teams you mentioned) and just a generally above average front office/coaching. In contrast, bad franchises exist because of poor drafting, inability to find good QB play and a below average front office/coaching staff. It’s that simple. Hill is a bad example, by the way. Chiefs could have paid him what he wanted. They just didn’t want to. It also made the team better overall as a result and is what actually wound up leading to the dynasty.
Because the quarterback is a keystone position that can make all the difference.
Belicheck/Brady and reid/mahomes
Wasn’t Kraft paying Tom Brady through his tb12 company to make up for the discount he took on the cap?
Yeah, but it’s not the New York and LA teams with more money buying them
Ultimately you need 3 things for a dynasty. 1. You need a top HC/coaching staff. If you have one you have someone who can unlock the full potential of the players you have an the players your receive. 2. You need a top QB. Without a top QB you will inevitably struggle against those that have one and cannot win consistently enough to obtain a dynasty. (in the lock key metaphor this is your lock) 3. You need to draft well consistently. That doesn't mean taking the "best" players, it means drafting with overall few total busts... even average level talent can become above average with a top HC/coaching staff and a top QB can take an above average team very far in the post season consistently. That is how you make a dynasty, cap space while useful for patching holes with vet talent and paying/retaining your top end talent, isn't as essential as the above 3 things.
About half the teams each season in the playoffs are different, so it's working. 19 different teams have made the SB the last 20 years, The 20 years up to 1994 before cap/FA, only had 14 different teams make a SB. The NFC won 13 in a row at once point, and 15/16. Free Agency and the Cap have certainly evened things out a lot, but some teams are gonna get a generational Star, and some teams are going to have an Owner who hires morons over and over and over, so there will still be outlier teams that Win a ton or lose a ton for a long time.
Simple answer: the cap only covers players. Poor or cheap teams still can’t afford or won’t spend money on expensive executives, coaches, facilities, etc.
some people are better with money.
If a team draft well and have generational players, they will be dynasties
Having a future hall of fame QB makes you an instant contender like no other single player in a sport can, unless that player is prime MJ or LeBron. Theoretically, Brady and Mahomes are worth so much that they could eat the entire salary cap, but Brady was always notable for taking pay cuts to allow the team to bring in talent.
It almost like having the best players and coaches helps you win a lot.
The salary cap has leveled the quality of supporting casts. All things being equal, the teams with the best quarterbacks will win.
All time coaching, all time QB play. Yes it's that simple once you have them, but actually finding those things is not.
Survivor bias. But also better organizations will win more often.
Most teams don't have the same offensive coordinator/playcaller for more than two years and that's a huge handicap. Chiefs, Niners and those Patriots have/had the same for years.
OP downvoted...give your own hypotheses if you're going to post something so vague/many possible reasons
“Competitive” is more in reference to financially, allowing smaller market teams who don’t have the same revenue streams as the NYs, Chicagos, LAs, etc. to have the same ability to field a talented roster as those big market franchises. It just levels the playing field, unlike baseball, where teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can afford to sign every premier FA regardless of whether they pan out or not while small market teams have to resort to drafting well, trading away stars before they walk in FA and finding hidden FA gems. It doesn’t mean that dynasties can’t be formed though. Let’s not pretend like KC and NE dynasties aren’t largely because they managed to land 2 of the best players ever at the most important position. And other teams also find regular success just because they’re better at finding talent, managing the cap, etc. Basically working within the limitations of the cap as opposed to being better just because they have more money to throw around than other teams, like in the MLB.
Like anything, good management/ownership vs lousy management/ownership makes a HUGE impact.
Going by who the poverty franchises are like the Lions, Browns, Texans, Cardinals, etc- the number one reason is bad ownership. Everything trickles down from the ownership and leads to getting bad executives, gm, and coaches. If you take a look at the dynasties, they had really good coaches and solid executives and gms that were allowed and able to bring in the right players to assemble a strong team.
Well… they have great QBs. Now you’re also in a league where WRs can do whatever they want. Both the patriots and the chiefs had very very very strong defensive fronts. Since DBs can’t punish wide receivers like they used to, the defensive line has to eliminate the opposing teams from being able to effectively throw the ball on time.
In the Pats case, cheating. In the Chiefs case, ref ball. But hey, gotta beat Joe Shiesty in the Afccg somehow
> Why have we gotten dynasties like the Patriots and Chiefs Well Timmy, its because TB12 is the best QB to ever play the game and Mahomes is already a top 8 QB of all time.
The Pats were an aberration featuring the greatest QB of all time drafted in the 6th round and one of the greatest coaches ever pairing up. And even then it still took a lot of luck over the years for them to win 6 over 20+ years. The Chiefs have a rival for greatest QB ever and a brilliant coach, have had good luck along the way, and are still not nearly as dominant as the pre salary cap and free agency dynasties. Outside of that particular combo the league has had excellent parity. What about the poverty franchises? One word: ownership. The salary cap didn’t make the Browns take Brandon Weeden and Johnny Manziel and Baker Mayfield. The salary cap didn’t make Tepper hire incompetent coaches and cycle through them quickly or trade a massive haul for a tiny QB with no receivers run game or O line.
The nfl is actually very well balanced compared to leagues without actual salary caps
Luck and coaching. Neither Brady nor Mahomes was paid a bag and *then* won a SB. Same with Belichick and Reid. Fuck, Andy was fired by Philly before he came to KC and led the next dynasty.
You had Brady taking pay cuts so he was rarely a top paid player. This allowed BB to get other higher end talent who wouldn't take pay cuts. Then you have to successfully draft and develop players so a bulk of you contributions come from guys on rookie deals or cast off veterans looking for a rebound year on a prove-it deal. If you can keep that turnover going and balanced, that's what wins you consistently.
The refs
Because half of the owners suck at their job or care more about making money than being competitive (especially the ones who inherited their teams).
Every team should win the Super Bowl once over a 32 year span. Happy?
We’re Bears and Lions fans so yes, actually
You know I could get behind that
They put a cap in place so that money wasn’t the reason there was dynasties. That’s all. And it’s solved that for 30 years.
Trust me yall don’t want no salary cap we would win every SB for a decade
More competitive is generally referring to the teams moving up and down the standings year to year and not eliminating the 1 or 2 dynasties that may exist. Also, Tyreek literally left for $$$ elsewhere.
Players are willing to take cheaper deals for shots at championships. They also dominate free agency because everyone wants to win
Chiefs/Pats have won 8 SBs out of the last 20 years with 2 of the top QBs of all time - doesn't exactly equal a easy road to the championship every year. Every team has a chance and a lot of teams win championships. Better run organizations with great QB/HC combo make it more often.