NFL Pre-Salary Cap

[Pyser]

Watching the debate rage in hockey and baseball about whether to implement a salary cap or not (which i hope no one will start debating in this thread), I started thinking back to the NFL before the salary cap was implemented...and I was hoping you guys could refresh my memory, since I was only 13 or so in 1993, which is the first year of the cap I think.

Okay, for starters, I don't remember any unrestrictred free agency. There was plan B free agency, which meant you could protect a certain number of players on your roster (35 or 40? just guessing). Those that weren't protected became free agents...right or wrong? So, did this mean that if your team protected you, you could never become a free agent? Ever?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I don't have a clear recollection of haves vs. have nots, at least not the way we see in baseball and hockey. Certainly the Packers spent less than most every other team, but I don't remember the Giants outspending everyone. This could be because there were no free agents, or I could be way wrong. There were dynasties, obviously. The 49ers were never bad. The NFC East was a powerhouse for a decade, give or take. But I also remember the Bengals making it to the Super Bowl, etc.

So am I way off? Or was the league already more balanced in "free spending" than hockey and baseball now? Please help me refresh my memory, and since I was young, correct any mistakes I've made.

[Darkiller]

I remember fondly of the pre-1993 era when the 49ers were rich enough to offer themselves the #1 player at each position along with the league's #2 player at each position so to make sure that this guy would not start for another team.

This is how you got Steve Young backing-up Joe Montana for 4 years.
a Hall of Famer holding the clipboard for another Hall of Famer: this is a situation that cannot happen anymore now.

[CraigSca]

Just my opinion, but I used to love football much more than I do now. I remember being a young Colts fan when it actually meant something beating teams like the Steelers, Raiders, Dolphins, etc. Now, it can be argued that instead of parity, we have a lot of mediocrity. Also, there was a lot less roster movement in the 70's and 80's before the salary cap. Therefore teams could keep their personalities for more than one season. Now, if you have a vaunted defense, the best you can probably hope to keep the squad together is 1-2 years.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Yeah, football was better before the sal cap and unrestricted free agency.

It's funny how the rules all seem to be about keeping QB's healthy, but the way the league is set up, you can't keep a line together to keep him healthy. How long can the Colts keep Manning with Harrison & James? They already are sacrificing having a line. In today's NFL you can have great players, but not great teams. As good as the Patriots are (they are the best out there,) can they stack up with even decent teams from previous eras? Maybe, but the best teams kept their players together and the more familiar players are with each other the better the team can be. Ask Ty Law about what $$$$ does for the "team" concept...

That's not to say there wasn't a great deat of player movement in years past. Look how many teams "Night Train" played for. But Look at offensive lines. The best lines in history are a sum of the whole, not pieced together year after year. The movement that exists today creates the blown assignments that get guys hurt. Think of the D-lines. The Fearsome foursome. The Steel Curtain. None could exist today...

[RendeR]

The problem is, the players demanded free agency, and the only way the league could survive and keep prospering at all was to create the salary cap, so the whole problem falls back on the players demanding their salaries and freedom to play the field when their contracts were up.

[Pyser]

bump. maybe more people have some insight on this.

[KevinNU7]

I think the Larry Bird rule could help the NFL keep players on the same team but still get the money they deserve

[bamcgee]

you guys are crazy. We've had competitive super bowls, enthralling playoffs, and now the NFL is a 12 month league with the offseason player movement. Balanced talent levels force coaches to innovate and train young players for depth.

increased competition has only helped the game.

[condors]

i would like to see players only get 1 year contracts after they are free agents, the age of playing for 1 team is pretty much over, i would love the offseason to see who we are going to have the next year(i am sure some players would be comfertable with coach/area and would play for the same team the next season)

guys who get cut in football because of their contract
guys in basketball who are booed/viewed as a bust because of their contract
guys in baseball who take 3 years off then play well because its a "contract" year
guys in hockey who are shipped to playoff teams because of their contract

every sport contracts have a negative effect i am not saying its a be all end all solution but i sure would like to see it happen in one league

[BigJohn&TheLions]

you guys are crazy. We've had competitive super bowls, enthralling playoffs, and now the NFL is a 12 month league with the offseason player movement. Balanced talent levels force coaches to innovate and train young players for depth.

increased competition has only helped the game.
So an improved game to you is one where medeocrety reigns supreme. One where Terrelle Owens and Ty Law cry like three-year-olds because they feel that $7 million is an insult while the people who go to the games are getting laid off from $35,000 a year jobs. Where coaches get fired because they can't take a team with no talent and win a championship the next season. (I could go on, but why bother...)

[wishbone]

I think the Larry Bird rule could help the NFL keep players on the same team but still get the money they deserve
I would like to see a rule like the Bird rule, but I hate the way the NBA does it. I think if they based it on years with the team it would be better. Maybe if the NFL created a rule saying that once a player has played for a team for 7-10 years, only half his salary would be applied to the cap it would allow players to move and teams to keep players.

[Honolulu_Blue]

So an improved game to you is one where medeocrety reigns supreme. One where Terrelle Owens and Ty Law cry like three-year-olds because they feel that $7 million is an insult while the people who go to the games are getting laid off from $35,000 a year jobs. Where coaches get fired because they can't take a team with no talent and win a championship the next season. (I could go on, but why bother...)

How much do you think Terrell Owens and Ty Law would demand if there wasn't a salary cap? The figures would be insane and the crying all the louder.

I am all for parity. I like the fact that you feel each year your team may have a chance and that the Super Bowls are consistently dominated by only a handful of teams.

I think there should be less movement of players, maybe by increasing the number of years before a player becomes a unrestricted free agent, but other than a little bit of tinkering here and a little bit there (like the "Bird rule" noted above). It's all good.

Then again, it's not like the Lions haven't continued to suck harder than a black hole even in this era of parity.

[nfg22]

One, with the salary cap Terrel can cry and if he is as good as the percentage of room he takes up, he will get it. The thing is people go to games and spend money, they go to see terell owens or whoever. Those players all want more money, some are just less greedy.The money goes to the players. Maybe if you are laid off you should spend your money wisely and not go to a game, stay home watch it on tv. If you dont like them whining then dont pay them, the fans pay the players ultimatly.

[RendeR]

So an improved game to you is one where medeocrety reigns supreme. One where Terrelle Owens and Ty Law cry like three-year-olds because they feel that $7 million is an insult while the people who go to the games are getting laid off from $35,000 a year jobs. Where coaches get fired because they can't take a team with no talent and win a championship the next season. (I could go on, but why bother...)



nothing you say here is any different now than it was in 1980. The salary cap hasn't changed any of these things. there will always be terrel's and Ty's because in every seaons there is someone who thinks he is god's gift to his position. there are awlways going to be prima donnas in this sport.

people getting laid off has exactly what to do with this? nevermind, I'll forgive one annoyance induced flop.

and what coach have you ever seen stick with a team without making it win? losing teams fire coaches, pure and simple. how the hell does that figure into the argument?


in the 80's and 90's there were maybe a dozen teams in any season with a real shot at getting to the super bowl. perhaps you liked it better when every game on sunday save one or two was a blowout? perhaps you really prefer seeing one team dominate for a decade because they can afford all the talent so when they play they look "amazing or something"

there is no mediocrity in the game. these are professionals playing at the top level of the sport. So they aren't setting records every year, you know what? thats not the end of the world. perhaps the coaching isn't as good anymore, I believe it. Perhaps the players are all about the money and couldn;t give a shit less about doing the job, I believe it.

The players demanded the changes, the changes are NOT the problem. Those people performing the job are the heart of the problem. If you dislike what you see and call it "mediocre" then perhaps you should go to the problem itself and blame those responsible, the players, coaches, and staffs of the teams. because they are the ones producing your "mediocrity".


We as a race always look at the past and say "man things were so much better when...." and its a total load of horseshit. Times change, sports change, if you don't like it, find another sport.

I love football, I too miss the days of air coryell, and the steel curtain, doomsday and the rest, but thats the past, and its going to remain the past, no matter how much we scream at the universe.

[Pyser]

in the 80's and 90's there were maybe a dozen teams in any season with a real shot at getting to the super bowl. perhaps you liked it better when every game on sunday save one or two was a blowout? perhaps you really prefer seeing one team dominate for a decade because they can afford all the talent so when they play they look "amazing or something"


ahh, now we are getting to what my question was. is this the way it was? i dont remember any teams really being that out of it all the time, at least not the way devil rays or brewers are...except tampa bay. they sucked.

but was the game really broken? or was it haves vs have nots?

[RendeR]

the game was broken, the players expected free agency right away, the only way to not utterly destroy the sport due to free agency was to install the hard cap.

look back at the 80's for example, how many teams never won a division, or even made a playoff appearence? look at the 70's, that number will be bigger as there were a few truly dynasty like teams then and the rest were also rans.

I may not like the huge number of players changing teams from year to year, many people don't, but that in and of itself is NOT the problem. If people feel there is only mediocre product being produced, how can you blame anything but the players and those who coach them? the product IS the pplay on the field.

if in fact any change should be made to free agency it is this:

if you sign with another team as a free agent, the contract should be a minimum of 4 years and you either play out those four years or you don't play in the league, period.

this would do two things:
A) its going to stop the one year team hoppers.

B) it will make those people who reach free agency MUCH more choosy about where they want to play.

C) in the long run it should reduce the inflation of salaries because of the length of the contract and the fact that teams won;t have as much room to work with under the cap in any given year because there will be less player turnover.

D) players could still get cut during their 4 years and have opportunities to move to other teams that way as well.

this is a theory of mine, not a studied research agenda, please don't shred it too badly =)

[RendeR]

and if its just preniall losers you were asking for:

Patriots, sucked until the early 90's, the 86 super bowl was a joke, they were the lowest seeded team, an example of "any given sunday"

tampa bay buccs, the pre-bengals joke of the NFL

Seattle Seahawks: talented team with terrible coaching for a decade rarely won more then 6 games a year

the cardinals: how many decades has it been since this team had a 10+ win season?

the bears: yeah they had what? 3 seasons in the late 80's where they rocked, 3 but beyond that they've beena laughing stock

Atlanta: nuff said.....



these are all teams that with the advent of free agency and the cap have been able to build teams in any given year that could make a super bowl run. well ok, except the cardinals, but damnit, every league has its devil rays....