Question About Free Agency Before 1994

[nosebleedjints]

If so, how would players go from team to team?

Were trades or non tenders the only the way, and if so, how could the Giants not have won more than two Super Bowls or at least made the playoffs in 87 and 88?

 

I suppose this put an emphasis on drafting, making it hard for teams to good from bad to good fast, but also keeping together the cores of teams which worked hard to earn their high stature.

 

The question I have is, which do you prefer?

Post 1993 free agency or pre 1993?

 

I think I would prefer it with less free agency.

I like parity in that anyteam has a chance, but there has been too much parity.

Look at the Giants having a shot at the playoffs.

Moreso, with so much parity, it kind of has taken the meaning out of it.

When I began following football, playing tecmo Super Bowl, I recall I would have the computer simulate games.

I would do this so perinnel losers, like the Pats, Colts, Falcons, Saints, Rams, Bucaneers, would win.

I remember how weird it was to see those franchises winning.

Nowadays we only have two real losers, the Lions and the Cardinals.

The Raiders were in a Super Bowl four years ago and the Texans are still an expansion club.

 

When you used to see somebody like the Bucs or Rams win it was cool because it happened so rarely.

Now, all the time teams go from nowhere to the championship game, and it's taken some of the meaning out of it.

 

I'd like some free agency, and some parity so teams and fans get to experience winning, but a moderated version, this too all over the place.

 

Also, I think this unfairly punished contenders who have built strong teams.

Look at the Colts.

No they have no won a Super Bowl and no they do not have a good defense.

However they have drafted outstandinding, but teams keep raiding their defense which they can not afford due to the offense.

Were this to be pre 1994 the Colts would have, in my view, won a Super Bowl or at least been because they would kept all the talent on defense instead of replenishing.

Teams should have to share some the talent wealth, but they should not be punished for drafting, scouting, and making wise choices by having smaller windows and turnover losses.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

If so, how would players go from team to team?

Were trades or non tenders the only the way, and if so, how could the Giants not have won more than two Super Bowls or at least made the playoffs in 87 and 88?

 

I suppose this put an emphasis on drafting, making it hard for teams to good from bad to good fast, but also keeping together the cores of teams which worked hard to earn their high stature.

 

The question I have is, which do you prefer?

Post 1993 free agency or pre 1993?

 

I think I would prefer it with less free agency.

I like parity in that anyteam has a chance, but there has been too much parity.

Look at the Giants having a shot at the playoffs.

Moreso, with so much parity, it kind of has taken the meaning out of it.

When I began following football, playing tecmo Super Bowl, I recall I would have the computer simulate games.

I would do this so perinnel losers, like the Pats, Colts, Falcons, Saints, Rams, Bucaneers, would win.

I remember how weird it was to see those franchises winning.

Nowadays we only have two real losers, the Lions and the Cardinals.

The Raiders were in a Super Bowl four years ago and the Texans are still an expansion club.

 

When you used to see somebody like the Bucs or Rams win it was cool because it happened so rarely.

Now, all the time teams go from nowhere to the championship game, and it's taken some of the meaning out of it.

 

I'd like some free agency, and some parity so teams and fans get to experience winning, but a moderated version, this too all over the place.

 

Also, I think this unfairly punished contenders who have built strong teams.

Look at the Colts.

No they have no won a Super Bowl and no they do not have a good defense.

However they have drafted outstandinding, but teams keep raiding their defense which they can not afford due to the offense.

Were this to be pre 1994 the Colts would have, in my view, won a Super Bowl or at least been because they would kept all the talent on defense instead of replenishing.

Teams should have to share some the talent wealth, but they should not be punished for drafting, scouting, and making wise choices by having smaller windows and turnover losses.

88 was one of those crazy years when a 10-6 record did not get you into the playoffs. They were tied with about 3 or 4 other teams and they did not get in on tie breakers. This is one of the reasons why they added a third wildcard team to the mix to address these types of atrocities. Basically the Giants lost a couple of heartbreakers to two green teams, the E-gals and the Jets. The Jets win was the last game of the season and the Giants lost on a last second TD to Al "Where Am I" Concussion Toon. The Jets went nowhere but home but Joe Walton treated that game like it was the fucking SuperBowl and crippled the Giants playoff chances.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

NFL free agency should have followed the NBA in one respect....NBA teams are free to spend whatever they want on their own veterans and/or the option to match what is being offered by another team ....so if you have a Chad Bratzke on the other side of Strahan you now have the money to pay him to stay and turn your defense into a monster rather than have him raided by another team...I believe it was the Colts...and where is Chad now...out of football I believe. I agree with you I preferred the dynasty era of football where teams went through 3-5 cycles of being dominant then going down, and repeating the cycle.

[nosebleedjints]

I don't follow the NBA, so I am not familiar with their revenue sharing or salary cap.

I would like some movement and oppurtunity for all to compete, but I'd like good drafting and management to be rewarded or have time to mold instead of being raided.

It's too bad the NFL can't do anything about it because while it is nice to see new teams, the quality of talent per team has been too watered down in an almost communist manner.

I'm not saying have the rich get richer, I'm saying don't make a system where teams can't build and stay together cohesively speaking.