Jump to content

2017's parity. Why?


Hunter2_1

Recommended Posts

Goodell: "Competitive balance exists and must continue to exist in the NFL"

What are some of the reasons for the noticeable parity this season so far? It genuinely feels like we're closer than ever to having every team go 8-8. This year, 14 NFL teams have three wins heading into Week 7—up from nine last year and five at this point in 2015. That year, there were five undefeated teams through six weeks; this year there are zero. But most shockingly, underdogs are covering the spread 60 percent of the time—and road underdogs are covering 62.5 percent of the time through Sunday. Or, do you just think it's a blip?

So, two questions: why? And do you prefer it like this?

I think the top two reasons might be a change in how teams use their salary cap (spreading it out, creating a team of good players rather than having the unbalanced superstars and scrubs model) and also the lack of practice time; no one comes into the season ready under the new practice laws. It's like Sept is an extension to the pre season.

Do I like it? I don't actually. I think it's good when there's one or two dominant teams, as that can create rivalry and also 'upsets of the decade' kind of games. 

How about you?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the overabundance of injuries and I think increasing practice time would both help that and improve the quality of play.

However, do I like the parity in the league?  Absolutely.  I love it. 

I'm not an NBA fan, but if I were, I can't imagine I'd be enjoying it unless I was a Warriors or Cavaliers fan.  We all know who is going to be in the NBA finals, we all knew who was going to be in the NBA finals last year and the year the before, so that makes the regular season and even the playoffs leading up to the finals rather pointless IMO. 

 

I don't know who is going to win thanks to the lack of apparently truly dominant teams.  Isn't that a good thing?  Aside from Browns fans, doesn't that give most of us hope that "our team" could be the one to win it all?   There doesn't seem to be a single truly dominant team.  As a result, maybe the Chiefs will win the Superbowl, maybe the Seahawks will.  Maybe the Broncos will.  Maybe the Eagles will.  Maybe the Jag..... I can't finish that sentence. 

 

But even when we do get a dominant team like the Patriots in the current system, I like that too.  It's because they played the chess game that is personnel management more effectively than the 31 other teams, not because they put together a super team full of other team's all-stars and MVP candidates.  This year they're not doing as well, and it's clearly because of the moves they made during the offseason. 

To put it another way, if somehow Khalil Mack, Julio Jones, Harrison Smith, Earl Thomas, Jalen Ramsey, Marcus Gilbert, Ron Leary, Travis Kelce and Luke Keuchley all were able to left their respective teams and as a group decided to join the Dallas Cowboys to win a title, would any of you want to watch football next season?  Assume Tom Brady also retired.   Would any of you want to watch that?  Barring an ungodly amount of injuries, you know who is going to win.  You might as well not even bother. I know I wouldn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MKnight82 said:

Age/regression of the established star QBs IMO.  

Not even just the QBs, it seems like at all positions it's a weird transitional period where we need to find the next generation of future Hall of Fame talent.

But we'll put a microscope on QB's for the moment. Only 2 QBs in the top 10 for passer rating (with at least 100 attempts) are younger than 30, but in at least their 3rd year in the league. Kirk Cousins (29), and Derek Carr (26), who's been hurt.

The vast majority of talent is in it's twilight years or just entering the league. Feels like there are no hall of famers yet in their prime, or they're past their prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parity is for losers.Parity means everything  is weaker.  No team develops a cohesive  unit with all the free agency. No one is a team in the classic sense. Everyone starts QBS too young with no clue what they are doing...that really goes for any position  now anyway.  It's just a professional pick up game now. They aren't *teams*.

 It's just...well,this week,my group  of guys might be better then your group of guys. Every week now....a team blows out a team and then the next week ,gets blown out by a team that was blown out the previous  week. It's a bunch of inconsistent  nonsense.

But it didn't change anything anyway. It was supposed to even the playing field  but the  same 10 teams still keep making the playoffs that have been since the SB/ two league era began. It just appears  that more different teams make the playoffs since they added slots. But by round  2 ,it's the same teams as always 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theJ said:

This graphic is very telling of the current environment.  A lot has changed in 15 years.

 

We could conceivably get 29 teams in that middle bracket, if KC and PHI happen to lose this week. I think both will win, but it's possible and it would be uncharted terrority for the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaron Rodgers hurt, Patriots defense having a bad year, and only three elite quarterbacks, one of which likely out for the year.

The NFL has a talent problem.  That leads to more parity.  Once Brees retires in two-ish years, and once Brady retires in two-ish years, we'll probably have crap quarterbacks winning Super Bowls and crappier quarterbacks winning MVPs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Aaron Rodgers hurt, Patriots defense having a bad year, and only three elite quarterbacks, one of which likely out for the year.

The NFL has a talent problem.  That leads to more parity.  Once Brees retires in two-ish years, and once Brady retires in two-ish years, we'll probably have crap quarterbacks winning Super Bowls and crappier quarterbacks winning MVPs. 

Of the young QBs that could be the next HoF talent, guys like Carr and Luck are staying hurt.  We didn't see Manning, Brady, or Brees hurt like this.  Other guys like Jameis I have my doubts about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jlowe22 said:

Of the young QBs that could be the next HoF talent, guys like Carr and Luck are staying hurt.  We didn't see Manning, Brady, or Brees hurt like this.  Other guys like Jameis I have my doubts about.

Great point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there TRULY that much NEW parity?  

The Patriots have always owned the AFC East, and even though they look very beatable right now, still do.

Steelers are at the front of the North, which isnt uncommon,  and the Bengals and Ravens arent super far behind.  Browns are still the Browns.

AFC South is always a crapshoot...still is.    

Chiefs leading the AFC West....not uncommon.   Broncos arent far behind.

The NFC East and NFC South are two division that regularly alternate division winners....so that "parity" has existed for awhile.

Minnesota and GB lead the NFC North...but GB will fall behind due to Rogers injury.  Not true parity....just the consequence of an injury to a key player.

And with the NFC West...the Rams have been an up and coming team that finally got the right pieces in place to make it happen.   Call it parity if you want, but I think the Rams are just replacing the Cardinals as the main challengers to the Seahawks going forward.    

Im not saying there is no parity....but I dont see any major change from what its been all along.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...