2025 NFL Thread

[betarhoalphadelta]

The NFL has have-nots, just like college football does.

Yes, but for a completely different reason. 

The NFL is set up to be the ultimate parity machine. The draft, CBA, franchise tag and all the free agency rules mean that every team has access to talent. The hard salary cap means that no team can just "buy up" all the best free agents. 

If a team is perpetually bad, you can place the blame squarely on the team's management. Because the system is designed to give every have-not equal chance as the haves, if they make good decisions in their GM, head coach, and thereby in their draft / talent acquisition strategy. 

This is why the Lions can be doormats for a generation and with the right coach and GM, turn things around. Because there is no inherent systemic process making the rich richer in the NFL and keeping the "poor man" down. 

But it doesn't happen overnight. So instead of actually making the structural changes at the HC/GM positions to build a team over the span of 4-5 drafts, bad owners see one coach not doing "enough" soon enough, can him, spin the wheel o' available coaches, watch them not do "enough" soon enough, rinse, and repeat. 

[CatsbyAZ]

If a team is perpetually bad, you can place the blame squarely on the team's management. Because the system is designed to give every have-not equal chance as the haves, if they make good decisions in their GM, head coach, and thereby in their draft / talent acquisition strategy.

^
^
This this this

And yet, as I was mentioning to my buddy the other day, the NBA and MLB as of late seem like the more open leagues when it comes to Championships. In baseball there are 8 different World Series Championship over the last decade with the Dodgers and Astros the only two with additional championships. Even though it seems like LA is dominating baseball, their own division rivals have recently knocked them out of the playoffs in 2022 and 2023.

In the NBA there are 7 different teams with championships in the last ten seasons, with Golden State, the last true dynasty, accounting for additional championships.

Compare that to the NFL and as soon as the League gets out from under the thumb of New England's dynasty, here come the Chiefs to dominate the AFC, and not a weak AFC.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Compare that to the NFL and as soon as the League gets out from under the thumb of New England's dynasty, here come the Chiefs to dominate the AFC, and not a weak AFC.

I don't quite look at it this way. The Chiefs have had a hell of a run, to be sure. But it's not been like the rest of the AFC hasn't had good teams too. The Bills, Ravens, and Bengals have been VERY good. The Dolphins have had flashes, and the Chargers may be ascending. 

The Chiefs seem to keep coming out on top of the AFC CG, but it's not like the teams they're up against each year are changing. 

[LetsGoPeay]

https://twitter.com/NFL_Memes/status/1899858243993690277

[OrangeAfroMan]

Yes, but for a completely different reason.

The NFL is set up to be the ultimate parity machine. The draft, CBA, franchise tag and all the free agency rules mean that every team has access to talent. The hard salary cap means that no team can just "buy up" all the best free agents.

If a team is perpetually bad, you can place the blame squarely on the team's management. Because the system is designed to give every have-not equal chance as the haves, if they make good decisions in their GM, head coach, and thereby in their draft / talent acquisition strategy.

This is why the Lions can be doormats for a generation and with the right coach and GM, turn things around. Because there is no inherent systemic process making the rich richer in the NFL and keeping the "poor man" down.

But it doesn't happen overnight. So instead of actually making the structural changes at the HC/GM positions to build a team over the span of 4-5 drafts, bad owners see one coach not doing "enough" soon enough, can him, spin the wheel o' available coaches, watch them not do "enough" soon enough, rinse, and repeat.

Agreed.

And a bad owner is especially damning, because they're the owner for DECADES.  

[Mdot21]

someone going to draft him high....and get fired 2-3 years later...


https://twitter.com/NFLRookieWatxh/status/1902551117864615962

[MikeDeTiger]

Agreed.

And a bad owner is especially damning, because they're the owner for DECADES. 

If every rule has exceptions and every dataset has outliers, is Dallas it?

Dallas used to be more successful.  Now they can't get over the hump at best and outright struggle at worst.  Jerry Jones has been the owner throughout.  Has his ownership/GM style changed, or has Dallas been more consistent through the years than it feels like to the casual eye?  

[GopherRock]

Jerry's been a great owner but a terrible GM, and has been for a long time.

[847badgerfan]

Jones' best GM ever was Mike Lynn.

[utee94]

Jerry's been a great owner but a terrible GM, and has been for a long time.

Jerry's a bad owner because he has allowed a terrible GM to persist for decades.

I mean, I'm going to assume we're all talking about effectiveness of owner/GM/coach to produce a quality on-field product.

If you're speaking strictly of generating revenue and increasing capital, Jerry is great at it, but I'm a fan and I don't give one half of one shit how much money Jerry makes while allowing his team to suck ass for decades.  If none of those resources are plowed back into improving the quality of the on-field product, then it's completely pointless from a fan's viewpoint.

[GopherRock]

Yup, that's what I was referring to.

He's a great owner because he's increased the value of his team by almost two orders of magnitude in his lifetime. And once you boil off all the altruistic bullshit, that's what the primary point of business is: to make money for the owner.

He's a shit GM because most of that time his on-field product has been rancid.

[Mdot21]

Yup, that's what I was referring to.

He's a great owner because he's increased the value of his team by almost two orders of magnitude in his lifetime. And once you boil off all the altruistic bullshit, that's what the primary point of business is: to make money for the owner.

He's a shit GM because most of that time his on-field product has been rancid.

two orders of magnitude? Try 10. He bought the Cowboys for $140 million in 1989. They’d go for well over $10 billion if he sold them today.

he’s a shitty GM because he keeps getting the coaching hires wrong. his drafting hasn’t been all that bad to be honest. nothing like it was when Jimmy was running the team but still better than a lot of the NFL. 

[utee94]

Yup, that's what I was referring to.

He's a great owner because he's increased the value of his team by almost two orders of magnitude in his lifetime. And once you boil off all the altruistic bullshit, that's what the primary point of business is: to make money for the owner.

He's a shit GM because most of that time his on-field product has been rancid.

He's a shit owner because he won't fire the GM.  The Cowboys would be even more valuable, if they were actually successful.  By a substantial margin.

[Mdot21]

He's a shit owner because he won't fire the GM.  The Cowboys would be even more valuable, if they were actually successful.  By a substantial margin.

see I don't even think it's so much him being a shit GM, think it's more his ownership. he has pretty poor track record of hiring coaches and he interferes way too much with the coaches. players know that they can just go over the coaches head and right to Jerry. can't have a winning program like that- coach has to be the sole captain of the ship- the dictator if you will.

in terms of being a GM- which is drafting players, making trades, and signing F/A's- Jerry has been pretty damn rock solid at that. You look at the 20+ years of New England's dominance with Belichik- and I'd argue that Jerry did a better job of drafting and signing F/A's than Bill. Most of those studs on defense when Bill first got to NE were already there and drafted by Parcells. Now Bill hit the absolute jackpot lottery of all-time in pro sports when he got Brady in the 6th round- but that was complete blind luck and NOBODY knew that he would grow and develop into what he became- not even Bill- otherwise he wouldn't have lasted til the end of the 6th round. 

But look at the players and talent that Jerry was able to acquire- Cowboys have always had some really nice talent over the years. Poor coaching and Jerry getting in the way has made them less successful than they should've been. I also think they just haven't hit on the QB. Romo was a very good NFL QB and so is Dak Prescott, but they never were and never will be in the upper echelon elite tier like a Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, or Mahomes.