NFL, Injuries Reveal a Crisis of Depth

Repercussions of the Salary Cap Rules or is it simply too difficult to have on call 3 qualified replacements for 22 positions? Whichever, we've seen the results.

When a team's first stringer falls out due to injury, his replacement is a far cry from being a pro-bowler. Basically speaking, replacement players suck. And, replacement quarterbacks and wide receivers suck the most. It's systemic.

There are exceptions. Like Steve Young backing up Joe Montana and seeing Aaron Rogers behind Brett Favre, we occasionally get Nick Foals replacing Michael Vick or a team like the Patriots, who seem to always have on hand a qualified replacement for every position. But more often than not, the replacement is some unheard of second stringer who steps in for wounded superstars like Aaron Rodgers or Jay Cutler.

If anything, the 2013 season has brought to critical mass an issue that has accelerated with the reduction of offseason training periods. The NFL might not have an injury problem as much as it has a crisis of depth, especially at -- but not limited to -- the quarterback position.

Let's take a closer look at what has happened and conclude with some suggestions for reversing the trend...

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=10039338

Click to expand...

Yep. It forces serious management decisions. Do I spend $4.5 million on a superstar, leaving $500K for a weak back-up, or do I settle for two average players at $2.5 million each? Will other player prospects be more apt to want play on a team with the average player in that skill position or the team with the superstar?

It's the result of a more balanced league. Quality in pro sports is always going to exist on a kind of bell curve. There are going to be great players, terrible players and everyone will fit in somewhere between. And since pro football is direct competition, rather than an attempt to achieve objective goals (think golf as a counter example), even if the worst players get better over time, the best players will improve as well, so the curve doesn't change.

Thus the league will always have a limited number of "great" players, since "great" is relative to the skills of those around them. Since there is a limit to those great players, one of two things can happen: either a few teams can stockpile all the talent or the talent can be spread out amongst all the teams. Right now, the talent is simply spread out, and because of this, depth just isn't going to exist.

If the NFL got rid of the salary cap, I'd pretty much pack it in and call it quits as an NFL fan. It'd be just like baseball where the biggest cities with the most money would gut all the smaller cities' teams of their best players and New York would win ever other year with an ocassional interruption from New England out of Boston and perhaps Chicago.

poweRob said:

If the NFL got rid of the salary cap, I'd pretty much pack it in and call it quits as an NFL fan. It'd be just like baseball where the biggest cities with the most money would gut all the smaller cities' teams of their best players and New York would win ever other year with an ocassional interruption from New England out of Boston and perhaps Chicago.

Click to expand...

Buying players hasn't helped the Angels.

Football is a ten-billion-dollar industry which splits the money equally. So...I'm not buying the argument. If anything, football could easily afford to expand the salary cap. But...

The problem is probably even deeper than salary cap. Football is a sport of attrition--the healthiest team in December-January wins.

calamity said:

Buying players hasn't helped the Angels.

Football is a ten-billion-dollar industry which splits the money equally. So...I'm not buying the argument. If anything, football could easily afford to expand the salary cap. But...

The problem is probably even deeper than salary cap. Football is a sport of attrition--the healthiest team in December-January wins.

Click to expand...

I think my argument stands rather solid. The richer teams in a noncap sport wins more. Simple as that. Take a look at the top 10 teams vs the bottom 10 teams in dollars and then guess which group win more.

All the Yankees have to do each year is basically look up the cy young and golden glove winners of the previous year and enlist them or buy out their contracts which the poor team will go for because they can't afford the guy anymore.

poweRob said:

I think my argument stands rather solid. The richer teams in a noncap sport wins more. Simple as that. Take a look at the top 10 teams vs the bottom 10 teams in dollars and then guess which group win more.

All the Yankees have to do each year is basically look up the cy young and golden glove winners of the previous year and enlist them or buy out their contracts which the poor team will go for because they can't afford the guy anymore.

Click to expand...

When's the last time the Yankees won a World Series? I see an old team that can't even win their division.

Last year's WS champ was in last place the year before, and that year's WS champ, the Giants, sewed up last place this past year. Rangers spend a fortune to no avail. Cardinals are in a small market and they are perennial contenders.

NFL: we see Patriots winning their division every year since the Patriot Act. So much for parody.

calamity said:

When's the last time the Yankees won a World Series? I see an old team that can't even win their division.

Last year's WS champ was in last place the year before, and that year's WS champ, the Giants, sewed up last place this past year. Rangers spend a fortune to no avail. Cardinals are in a small market and they are perennial contenders.

NFL: we see Patriots winning their division every year since the Patriot Act. So much for parody.

Click to expand...

There are rules and exceptions to the rule. You simply choose to try and find and tout the rare exceptions and ignore the rules I guess. St. Loius is the 10th richest baseball team btw... Pretty much furthering my point about the top 10 money teams have it easier.

poweRob said:

There are rules and exceptions to the rule. You simply choose to try and find and tout the rare exceptions and ignore the rules I guess. St. Loius is the 10th richest baseball team btw... Pretty much furthering my point about the top 10 money teams have it easier.

Click to expand...

Of course money helps. But money rarely buys championships. The Cubs have money but have sucked for decades. The Dodgers have spent a fortune but were bounced out of the playoffs. The Angels didn't even make the playoffs. Texas has been beaten by lesser market teams five years running, Tampa Bay being the most recent.

Half of this year's playoff teams: Cinci, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Oakland and Detroit cannot by any stretch be considered big money franchises. The others: Boston, St Louis and Atlanta are marginal at best. LA would be the only exception, and they have only just recently begun to spend money.

calamity said:

Of course money helps. But money rarely buys championships. The Cubs have money but have sucked for decades. The Dodgers have spent a fortune but were bounced out of the playoffs. The Angels didn't even make the playoffs. Texas has been beaten by lesser market teams five years running, Tampa Bay being the most recent.

Half of this year's playoff teams: Cinci, Pittsburgh, Tampa and Detroit cannot by any stretch be considered big money franchises. The others: Boston, St Louis and Atlanta were marginal at best. LA would be the only exception.

Click to expand...

Diamondbacks bought one.

Not to mention this list of champions paired with the list of top money teams seems kind of consistent.

poweRob said:

Diamondbacks bought one.

Not to mention this list of champions paired with the list of top money teams seems kind of consistent.

Click to expand...

Low budget Marlins beat big money Cubs and Yankees in 2003 or 4. SF won two of the previous four. Neither of those two teams can be considered wealthy.

Rounding out the rest from the past 10, we have Bosox with three, Cards with two, Yanks and Phills with one each.

Now, look at the NFL. Pats have three, NYG two, Steelers two, and then one each for GB, Indy and Blatimore.

I hate to say it, but I see those as comparable.

calamity said:

Low budget Marlins beat big money Cubs and Yankees in 2003 or 4. SF won two of the previous four. Neither of those two teams can be considered wealthy.

Rounding out the rest from the past 10, we have Bosox with three, Cards with two, Yanks and Phills with one each.

Now, look at the NFL. Pats have three, NYG two, Steelers two, and then one each for GB, Indy and Blatimore.

I hate to say it, but I see those as comparable.

Click to expand...

Fair point. I just think the structure of football as is helps a lot with perenial teams more than the money to the players. For example:


There is no salary cap on equipment or coaches. This allows for better training and support for the richer areas.

poweRob said:

Fair point. I just think the structure of football as is helps a lot with perenial teams more than the money to the players. For example:

With no salary cap on coaches, coaching staff sizes know no limits​

There is no salary cap on equipment or coaches. This allows for better training and support for the richer areas.

Click to expand...

Not to be flippant, but an endless budget for coaches, facilities and equipment sure hasn't helped the Cowboys. What does help though is a hot, healthy QB. See NC Panthers.

calamity said:

Not to be flippant, but an endless budget for coaches, facilities and equipment sure hasn't helped the Cowboys. What does help though is a hot, healthy QB. See NC Panthers.

Click to expand...

Well your argument here is that money cannot buy brains... and I agree with that.