Jump to content
Championshiporbust

Can a small-market, low payroll NFL team win a Super Bowl?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I've never seen any evidence or indication that this is true.

I mean speaking purely from a Bills fan perspective it’s true, but you could also argue that’s because we’ve been an inept franchise for this millennium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ET80 said:

Think about it - NYJ landed Trumaine Johnson one off-season (biggest CB on the market) and LeVeon Bell the following off-season. Did that really move the needle for them?

Team "building" is usually done via the draft - nobody (outside of Eli and Elway) dictated where they go in that respect. 

Draft will always be king. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, bigbadbuff said:

You can't say it's not relevant when bigger market teams tend to attract high profile free agents. In a vacuum it's fair because of the cap, but there's a personal level to it as well. 

Sorry can you name the big market FA that signed with the Patriots, Jets, Giants, Rams, Chargers and Cowboys this offseason?

I have Cooper, Go! 

 

Quote

Can it be done? Or does it have to be superstar, flashy Boston/L.A./N.Y/Dallas style?

 

Edited by Nabbs4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

Sorry can you name the big market FA that signed with the Patriots, Jets, Giants, Rams, Chargers and Cowboys this offseason?

I have Cooper, Go! 

How many players signed to the bigger markets in free agency are irrelevant here because of other factors involved that play a role in certain players' decisions.  For example, there have been plenty of players to sign with the Patriots over the years because Belichick and Brady was there. But this year it's very different since Brady left after 20 years and so it's natural that some players are bit more reluctant. Now this neither proves nor disproves your train of thought/idea since we will never really know but it is DEF an idea to strongly consider. 

This part is not addressed to you personally but only in general. 

I could be wrong here ( @bigbadbuff  please correct me if I am), but I think what he is ultimately trying to say here is that the reason those smaller market teams like GB and Pitt have been so successful is because their history of winning and that alone draws more attention than other teams who have not been so successful.

Which, if true bigbadbuff, you should also understand that this also counter-intuitive to the original point. 

That's just how I take is all based on what's been said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people need to understand, particularly those who are young, is that the Salary cap was implemented in the early 90's in order to help smaller market teams and even out the balance but they didn't have a crystal ball at the time to tell them that the best GM/Coach of all time would be paired with best QB of all-time for two straight decades. 

The Brady/Belichick era only started about 8 years after the salary cap was introduced. So not only was the best GM/HC of all time paired with the best QB of all time a match made in heaven that can very rarely be reproduced, but we also don't know yet how the league will actually play out without such anomaly taking place in the salary cap era. Especially since the changes made since then--some IN SPITE of them (IMO).  

The Salary cap has been around for  ~30 years and ~20 years of that time has been largely dominated by one single team and this throws off the OP's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the salary cap. For me, it's honestly the best feature in sports. It creates a level playing field so that everyone can go about their business in the same way and ultimately decision-making, team building and adaptability wins out. 

In Europe, Football (soccer) has something called FFP (financial fair play) that is supposed to level the playing field. It absolutely does not and if anything makes the playing field even more uneven. It's regulations to stop owners funding their teams: the result is the larger, historic, teams who have been successful during key periods, i.e. when football was first televised nationally (Liverpool) or when the Premier League went global (Man Utd) generate more income and therefore spend a lot more than others. It is regulation to ensure that small teams DON'T get to upset the larger teams at the top level. I would love a salary cap at the top level; create the same ceiling for everyone not give each team a different ceiling. 

The NFL is unparalleled in that sense as every team has the same budget. Some, Bengals, may not be as aggressive as others, Rams, but ultimately they're working under the same ceiling and have the same floor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

What people need to understand, particularly those who are young, is that the Salary cap was implemented in the early 90's in order to help smaller market teams and even out the balance but they didn't have a crystal ball at the time to tell them that the best GM/Coach of all time would be paired with best QB of all-time for two straight decades. 

The Brady/Belichick era only started about 8 years after the salary cap was introduced. So not only was the best GM/HC of all time paired with the best QB of all time a match made in heaven that can very rarely be reproduced, but we also don't know yet how the league will actually play out without such anomaly taking place in the salary cap era. Especially since the changes made since then--some IN SPITE of them (IMO).  

The Salary cap has been around for  ~30 years and ~20 years of that time has been largely dominated by one single team and this throws off the OP's question.

I guess, but I'm not sure how this affects what the OP was talking about. Like, how it fits into the equation. It's not like the Patriots spent out of their ears the entire time.

And I feel like Belichick the GM gets overrated due to Belichick the coach. Bill Belichick is NOT a great GM. He's alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bigbadbuff said:

I mean speaking purely from a Bills fan perspective it’s true, but you could also argue that’s because we’ve been an inept franchise for this millennium.

That's the primary reason, with the added Buffalo winters, the percieved limited night life. All of that is what is keeping young 20 year olds from flocking to the upper North East. Just like it is for GB and Pitts. Only they all like NE have a winning SB culture in place.

Play in a Dome and or live near a Beach with an absurd day/nightlife>>> Shovel 6ft of snow just to leave the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important part is it's not about the money. There are no "small budget teams". Everyone has the same upper limit and a high floor. Sure some people are going to pick one team over another based on all sorts of OTHER factors, but it's not because teams can't all financially make competitive offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's slightly easier to be a big market team, but it's NOTHING like the NBA, where you're dead in the water without a big market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question has been answered many times over.  Here's the real question:

Will a day ever come when the media chatter and NFL scheduling actually reflects the quality of the team as opposed the market they play in??

Nationally televised games that don't feature BAD to average teams from New York, Chicago and Dallas?  It's gone on for way too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 11:32 PM, bigbadbuff said:

I don’t think it’s a crazy disadvantage but it’s something worth a noting, doesn’t have to be star players either, quality depth choosing to go to play in big market or warm climate over a smaller cold weather market for the same money. 
 

Pittsburgh and GB are different because of their winning tradition, so yes winning does cure all.

There was a time between Lombardi and the early 90s when coaches and GMs of other teams threatened their players they would ship them off to the Siberia of the NFL in Wisconsin if they didn't shape up.  During those years the Packers were pretty dreadful.  Before the late 1960s the Steelers were the laughing stock of the league.  That all changed with Chuck Noll.  If you find folks to run the club that know what they are doing it doesn't matter what the size of the market is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

I think it's slightly easier to be a big market team, but it's NOTHING like the NBA, where you're dead in the water without a big market.

In the NBA if you have a dominate player, a good HC and you build your team around your star player you can be successful.  Just ask Giannis in Milwaukee.  They had a chance to have a special season before the virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Pugger said:

In the NBA if you have a dominate player, a good HC and you build your team around your star player you can be successful.  Just ask Giannis in Milwaukee.  They had a chance to have a special season before the virus.

The NBA isn’t exactly the best example because eventually your superstar is going to leave for a major market or force a trade there. 

Edited by lavar703

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×