BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeyBomb Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. I don't think the goal was to have every team represented equally in a random 5 year sample Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 It is a tool foe every team to have a chance to be equal. It does nothing at all to make them equal. The salary cap floor only assures that teams spend a certain amount of money and there is a lot of disparity with those teams spending that money. Spending money to target ticket sales on FA big names that are over the hill, often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Kind of makes sense that if you level the playing field some will be consistently better than others. Owners who are better at running teams and hiring the right people will consistently outperform those who aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddenboy Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The cap works. It does not achieve perfect parity because of the QB situation in the league. There arent enuf QBs. But without the cap, imagine if New England had unlimited cash to spend. Brady, Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson. And Adrian Peterson. I'd think that would skew your percentages even more sharply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downunderbill Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The one constant is drafting a good QB. Some teams seem have the ability and some just don't. The teams that do find one are consistent playoff teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The cap works. It does not achieve perfect parity because of the QB situation in the league. There arent enuf QBs. But without the cap, imagine if New England had unlimited cash to spend. Brady, Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson. And Adrian Peterson. I'd think that would skew your percentages even more sharply. It doesn't give us 32 teams at 8-8 but rarely are teams terribly far out of playoff contention for long. Most teams are consistently competitive. That's pretty much the goal i think Edited January 20, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke. I've ling said the salary cap should include all staff. Obviously not secretaries, but scouts, GMs, coaches, and trainers. Whatever that number needs to be, make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJDK Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The "haves" still win. the big signing bonus money doesn't count against the cap as far as i understand it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Disagree a bit. Quarterback play is the number one reason why those teams have consistently seen the playoffs. Yes having an overall solid base of talent is obviously important, but if you don't have a QB around that talent you arent going any where. The Colts being the opposite of this. They're front office is suspect. The team around Luck is trash. Yet they make it to the AFC Championship because of him. They would win 3 to 4 games if not for him. You will see the Seahawks fall off a bit within the next couple years due to the Salary cap as they will be forced to pay Wilson while letting some of their all pro players on defense walk due to allocation of their money within the cap. All those statistics showed me was more proof that having a QB means wins. This has little to nothing to do with the salary cap. The rule changes in the league have made it this way... I feel that QB play is absolutely the mainstay identfier But look deeper There are no many ELITE qbs to go around So what do you do? Even if you have a number 1 overall pick you might not get a elite QB I think you increase your chances much more by finding a GOOD QB and then biuld up the team around that QB........is the QB playing well because he gets consistant protection from his offensive line? Is the QB playing well because he has a running game that takes pressure off him? Is a QB playing well because he has targets that catch balls that are not perfectly thrown? Is a QB playing well because he is allowed to get into a rythum by having a defense that gives him multiple opportunities with good field position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The "haves" still win. the big signing bonus money doesn't count against the cap as far as i understand it Not trying to insult but you don't understand it correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 There's no such thing as parity in the league. There are teams with franchise quarterbacks, and there are those without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 You lost me when you included Cincinnati among your list of elite franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 You lost me when you included Cincinnati among your list of elite franchises. My heard a while back they have the smallest scouting department in the league. Also that Marvin Lewis does most of it, but not necassarily out of choice or job, but out of necessity. His job is more or less eternally safe because the franchise realizes that their ratio of success to resources is very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. What does having a good front office have to do with a failing salary cap? Salary cap is fine, just need a good GM and cap guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Pretty simple formula. Get an elite QB. Don't draft three RBs in the first round in under a decade. Build an offensive line. Rush the QB and hit him hard. Wait until you see Seattle blitz Brady to death. It's the only way to beat him. Rex knows that. The Bills have sat back and watched him throw darts into 7 man coverages for a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke. Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. All they need to do is get a viable QB and this team could realistically win the division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The reason playoff appearances get stacked to a set of teams disproportionately is because of the QB position. Teams with a top 5-7 QB are going to make the playoffs year in and year out if not close to that. Teams with good QB's 8-13 are going to be in contention for the playoffs every year. If you fall into the bottom half of the league in terms of QB play you are going to make the playoffs a lot less having to depend on a defense and a team effort to compensate for the QB. I am not sure what you could really do to remedy the situation. Maybe as advanced scouting and stats is aging scouts can predict which QB's out of college will do better. But still there are only so many people that can play the QB position. Either way QB's are the reason why you don't see more parity in the NFL. The salary cap does make committing 20+ million to a QB weaken the team and have a negative consequence. But overall the position is so much at a premium and rare that its not enough to overcome that one negative. Edited January 20, 2015 by billsfan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Wait until you see Seattle blitz Brady to death. It's the only way to beat him. Rex knows that. The Bills have sat back and watched him throw darts into 7 man coverages for a decade. Not true. You beat Brady by being able to get pressure with a 4 man rush. This perception that you have to blitz him is one of the biggest misnomers in the NFL. Brady's completion percentages against the blitz are consistently high. If you are leaving yourself a man short in coverage he will beat you with death by a thousand short passes. Go and watch the Giants Superbowl wins back. They pressured Brady a lot and so the perception is they blitzed him. They hardly did. They got pressure with four guys. It wasn't always the same 4 guys and it wasn't always the same rushes and coverages and that is what the key is. You have to confuse him, which just makes him hold the ball that split second longer and then your 4 man rush can get home. That was also the Kansas City model earlier this season. I agree with two other things that have been said..... the salary cap is not intending to create parity over a 5 year period. There is a longer term argument that says, for example, Indianapolis and New England have made the play offs most years for the last 15 years.... and that is where you get to what really causes the inquality or arms - the Quarterback. If you find a young, franchise Quarterback you have a great chance to make the play-offs for the next 10 years. Brady and Manning made that worse in that they are not just franchise guys but sure fires 1st ballot Hall of Famers, but take for example a guy like Joe Flacco - the Ravens have missed the play-offs just once since he arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Ya can't beat Brady when he knows what your doing presnap. Best way to beat him is call a blitz to the D headset however that really is code for rush 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Better than average QB play=better than average possibility of post season play, & the %'s go up when you move into the top 10 & top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I love the way the NFL is set up with a cap, and free agency. Seattle was a joke a few years ago, and look at them now. SF was 5-11, then some changes and then went to the NFC championship three years in a row. It starts with a strong front office, which then hires the right coaches, and scouts, and drafts well, doesn't over pay for free agents, and yes, the organization finding the right QB and surrounding him with a good line, etc. This sounds obvious, but the Bills have made mistakes for years in the above categories, so we blow up the team every three years. The common thread with the Packers, Steelers, Giants, Patriots is not just a franchise QB, but continuity as an organization, and building something with patience and a solid plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The "haves" still win. the big signing bonus money doesn't count against the cap as far as i understand itBonuses count. But teams can spread the cap hit around the contact term. That's how teams get in cap hell, when they backload bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeagentqb Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Continuity is only good if you have the right pieces in place. Would continuity be good for us if we still had Jauron, Williams or Mularky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 You lost me when you included Cincinnati among your list of elite franchises. I don't think they're elite...they just happen to get in the wild-card round and lose each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 the salary cap absolutely works. it is one of money ways the league attempts to level the playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been covered. Bills Vet's post about the salary cap not working as intended is why the new stadium is imperative. That was why the Bills signed the Toronto deal in the first place. The nonshared revenue generated by the larger market teams and teams with new stadiums is driving the cap at a rate that we eventually won't be able to keep up with. This is why RW voted against the CBA whenever that was. The Bills need to generate more nonshared revenue and it's tough to do at RWS. Fortunately they are probably considered the best in the league at doing it but the market and stadium have inherent limitations. Once the empty canvas of a new stadium comes the Bills will be able to close the growing gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been covered. Bills Vet's post about the salary cap not working as intended is why the new stadium is imperative. That was why the Bills signed the Toronto deal in the first place. The nonshared revenue generated by the larger market teams and teams with new stadiums is driving the cap at a rate that we eventually won't be able to keep up with. This is why RW voted against the CBA whenever that was. The Bills need to generate more nonshared revenue and it's tough to do at RWS. Fortunately they are probably considered the best in the league at doing it but the market and stadium have inherent limitations. Once the empty canvas of a new stadium comes the Bills will be able to close the growing gap. The CBA RW voted against (as did Mike Brown) was not a solid deal and I was wrong on that front. Tagliabue tried to push it through and we learned by 2011 how bad it was. At the same time, you've got owners like Jerry Jones who have a new stadium and have been to the playoffs all of 1 time since 2010. Jets and Giants got a new stadium a few years ago and have 2 playoff appearances in 10 combined seasons, albeit one was a SB win for Big Blue. I will still contend that as important as QB play is to a team's success, teams need to have a solid management organizational chart and personalities who fit within that who can find talent. It's not the old days where Bill Polian was beating most of the teams in the league unearthing talent. It's absurd that half the AFC has only 2 playoff appearances in the past 10 years. That's BUF, MIA, CLE, JAC, TEN, SD, OAK, and NYJ. And there are some big market teams in there as well. I don't see the correlation between unshared revenue and playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 seattle, green bay and indy are NOT big markets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't think the salary cap was supposed to help cover ineptitude in the front office. It was just supposed to level the playing field so a few teams could massively outspend the others. As such, it is working as intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The CBA RW voted against (as did Mike Brown) was not a solid deal and I was wrong on that front. Tagliabue tried to push it through and we learned by 2011 how bad it was. At the same time, you've got owners like Jerry Jones who have a new stadium and have been to the playoffs all of 1 time since 2010. Jets and Giants got a new stadium a few years ago and have 2 playoff appearances in 10 combined seasons, albeit one was a SB win for Big Blue. I will still contend that as important as QB play is to a team's success, teams need to have a solid management organizational chart and personalities who fit within that who can find talent. It's not the old days where Bill Polian was beating most of the teams in the league unearthing talent. It's absurd that half the AFC has only 2 playoff appearances in the past 10 years. That's BUF, MIA, CLE, JAC, TEN, SD, OAK, and NYJ. And there are some big market teams in there as well. I don't see the correlation between unshared revenue and playoffs. It may not be all of the way there yet but it is coming. if you look at how fast the cap is growing it isn't just a function on the new TV deal(s). It is because places like Levi's Stadium opened up. The Jets and Giants make something like $50M a year on suites, the Bills make like $8 and are full (or just about). Over 5 years the Jets and Giants are making $250M and the Bills $40 on suites. These all go into the league revenue number but it isn't shared (at least it didn't used to be). If it changed I am not aware of it. The players are entitled to a % of league revenue (not shared). As these teams find more creative ways to generate nonshared revenue (which they put a great deal of time into figuring out) that gap will widen. We may not be all the way there yet but that gap is growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The CBA RW voted against (as did Mike Brown) was not a solid deal and I was wrong on that front. Tagliabue tried to push it through and we learned by 2011 how bad it was. At the same time, you've got owners like Jerry Jones who have a new stadium and have been to the playoffs all of 1 time since 2010. Jets and Giants got a new stadium a few years ago and have 2 playoff appearances in 10 combined seasons, albeit one was a SB win for Big Blue. I will still contend that as important as QB play is to a team's success, teams need to have a solid management organizational chart and personalities who fit within that who can find talent. It's not the old days where Bill Polian was beating most of the teams in the league unearthing talent. It's absurd that half the AFC has only 2 playoff appearances in the past 10 years. That's BUF, MIA, CLE, JAC, TEN, SD, OAK, and NYJ. And there are some big market teams in there as well. I don't see the correlation between unshared revenue and playoffs. Baseball has no salary cap and it could be argued has more parity than the NFL right now. The reason - Front offices in baseball run by bright minds that have embraced a newer approach to building teams. Gone are the days of clichés running the teams. Innovation has been important in all sports for ever. Edited January 20, 2015 by moreproblemsthanOrton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke.MLB has far more parity than the NFL does. It's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 salary cap doesn't work? Isn't Seattle the first team to try to win back to back SB's in the last decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 My heard a while back they have the smallest scouting department in the league. Also that Marvin Lewis does most of it, but not necassarily out of choice or job, but out of necessity. His job is more or less eternally safe because the franchise realizes that their ratio of success to resources is very high. This is true. Paul Brown (the ultimate hands-on owner) set his team up this way because he felt strongly that coaches (which meant himself) needed to do their own scouting. Mike Brown runs things the way his dad did. (BTW, Bill Belichick believes this as well, although he has people trained to do some of the legwork for him.) As for Lewis, Brown also believed in continuity. The Bengals have only had 9 head coaches in their history. The Bills, by comparison, have had 8 head coaches since Marv Levy retired (the first time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Disagree a bit. Quarterback play is the number one reason why those teams have consistently seen the playoffs. Yes having an overall solid base of talent is obviously important, but if you don't have a QB around that talent you arent going any where. The Colts being the opposite of this. They're front office is suspect. The team around Luck is trash. Yet they make it to the AFC Championship because of him. They would win 3 to 4 games if not for him. You will see the Seahawks fall off a bit within the next couple years due to the Salary cap as they will be forced to pay Wilson while letting some of their all pro players on defense walk due to allocation of their money within the cap. All those statistics showed me was more proof that having a QB means wins. This has little to nothing to do with the salary cap. The rule changes in the league have made it this way... Completely agree. The Steelers don't make the post season without the play of Ben, which allowed Bell to have a great season. The Colts don't make the playoffs with their no-name defense without the stellar play of Luck. The Ravens don't make the playoffs without their QBs play late in the season. The only team that was weak on QB play this season was the Cardinals and they are more of an exception than the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 It may not be all of the way there yet but it is coming. if you look at how fast the cap is growing it isn't just a function on the new TV deal(s). It is because places like Levi's Stadium opened up. The Jets and Giants make something like $50M a year on suites, the Bills make like $8 and are full (or just about). Over 5 years the Jets and Giants are making $250M and the Bills $40 on suites. These all go into the league revenue number but it isn't shared (at least it didn't used to be). If it changed I am not aware of it. The players are entitled to a % of league revenue (not shared). As these teams find more creative ways to generate nonshared revenue (which they put a great deal of time into figuring out) that gap will widen. We may not be all the way there yet but that gap is growing. But i don't think revenue is why some teams are consistently better, i think it is the rule changes and QB's. It is, outside of a a hot goalie in a short playoff run, the most important position in sports, by far! If Bills had Wilson or Luck on their team right now, or even when Ralph was owner, they would be getting same contracts as they are due for in the respective cities. Same top QBs produce playoff appearances and playoff wins, just the way it is now. And with QB's playing well into their late 30's now, means team can go on an extended run , cap or no cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. I disagree and believe that is 100% about the QB. How good were the Pats before Tom Brady and especially before Drew Bledsoe? They were terrible for about 10 years. How were the Colts before Peyton and Luck? Terrible. How were the Saints before Brees? Terrible. Denver without Peyton hadn't really done anything significant since Elway. Cincy was terrible between Boomer and Dalton, Steelers may be your exception as they seem to do well consistently even without an elite QB, but they are way more consistent with one in Big Ben. Ravens Flacco now, before they had one of the best D's of all time, but prior to that they were terrible for 10 years since Bernie was running the show. San Fran, terrible between Young and Kaep (with one or two good years from Garcia). The list goes on and on. Elite QBs always lead to consistent playoff appearances. What was GB doing before the Favre / Rodgers years? Yep, nothing for about 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts