Jump to content

2017's parity. Why?

Hunter2_1

By Hunter2_1
in NFL General

Recommended Posts

theJ

theJ

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FourThreeMafia said:

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

I think the graphic i posted shows pretty clearly that the parity this year is at levels we haven't seen in quite some time, maybe ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hunter2_1

Hunter2_1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

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.   

The stats show more parity (league wise) than ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theJ

theJ

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:
1 hour 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.

Those are both good points.  In the last 5 years or so, we've seen a number of young QB's have stellar seasons, only to fall to the pack due to injury or talent issues around them.  From 2000-2010, we had a string of great QB's come along that were head and shoulders above the competition.  We're not seeing that on a consistent basis right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

Age/regression of the established star QBs IMO.  

Which ones? 

Ben's literally the only one where I can say he's probably regressed AND his team is and could be better this year if he played better. 

Otherwise: Brady hasn't regressed and he's playing fine and not the reason for his teams issues. Brees' team hasn't been good for years despite his high quality play. You can argue Eli and Flacco regressed but there teams have never been consistent enough to blame them for the parity. Rodgers got hurt. Rivers team hasn't been good in years regardless of his stats. 

I think it's more that we are seeing a lot of lopsided teams where they might have a good offense or a good defense but not both and they are all getting caught in mismatches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhorse

Warhorse

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, biletnikoff said:

Parity is for losers.Actually, parity is a goal sought by the NFL to even the financial playing field. Parity means everything  is weaker. No, it means the top teams could collectively be weaker, but it also means the lower teams will be better. Because everyone is closer, it can give the appearance of being weaker.  No team develops a cohesive  unit with all the free agency. Absolutely true, but without FA, today's unrivaled popularity would not exist 

 

My thoughts in red

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crickett

Crickett

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

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.

One down, one to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
43M

43M

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, theJ said:

I think the graphic i posted shows pretty clearly that the parity this year is at levels we haven't seen in quite some time, maybe ever.

All 6 games into the season.  Doesnt really prove much IMO.

If you simply want to define parity as alot of teams being close in the standings after 6 weeks, okay...sure.

True parity IMO is about the teams that actually have a legit shot at doing something, and based on what Im seeing, I dont see a real difference at this point between this year and previous years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theJ

theJ

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

All 6 games into the season.  Doesnt really prove much IMO.

If you simply want to define parity as alot of teams being close in the standings after 6 weeks, okay...sure.

True parity IMO is about the teams that actually have a legit shot at doing something, and based on what Im seeing, I dont see a real difference at this point between this year and previous years.

6 weeks, 14-16 games/week, 84+ games.  It's a good sample size.  No one has said they expect it to end this way, but so far this is statistically the highest percentage of parity we've seen in this league since at least 2002, maybe longer.

Also, your definition of parity is not correct.  All 32 teams can't have a shot at doing something.  To maximize the number of good teams that can "do something", you have to maximize the number of bad teams.  That is the opposite of parity.  Parity is a measure of number of average teams.  And there are a lot of them this year, thus far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hunter2_1

Hunter2_1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, theJ said:

6 weeks, 14-16 games/week, 84+ games.  It's a good sample size.  No one has said they expect it to end this way, but so far this is statistically the highest percentage of parity we've seen in this league since at least 2002, maybe longer.

Also, your definition of parity is not correct.  All 32 teams can't have a shot at doing something.  To maximize the number of good teams that can "do something", you have to maximize the number of bad teams.  That is the opposite of parity.  Parity is a measure of number of average teams.  And there are a lot of them this year, thus far.

Even more, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theJ

theJ

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, theJ said:

Also, your definition of parity is not correct.  All 32 teams can't have a shot at doing something.  To maximize the number of good teams that can "do something", you have to maximize the number of bad teams.  That is the opposite of parity.  Parity is a measure of number of average teams.  And there are a lot of them this year, thus far.

@FourThreeMafia I want to clarify this statement (it's too early in the morning) - if what you mean is that you define parity as maximizing the amount of legitimate super bowl contenders, then i agree with that definition.  But i disagree that we don't have that this year.  If the early season trend stays, and we don't see some good teams run away from the pack, we're going to have a number of "average" teams making the playoffs.  Maximizing the chances we see a 9-7 team win the superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...