You Need To Stop Hyperbolizing The Parity

[parrishlynchevans]

I've heard quite a few people talk about how there's very little difference between the best team in the NFL and the worst team in the NFL. Aren't you hyperbolizing that just a bit?

Postseason Appearances

Pats: 6 out of 8 seasons
Colts: 7 out of 8 seasons
Giants: 5 out of 8 seasons
Packers: 5 out of 8 seasons

There's a reason why these teams are essentially perennial playoff teams. I think the difference between best and worst is a lot greater than some people on here make it out to be.

[Mr. Pink]

Want to know the difference between the Pats of the league and us for the past decade, this season withstading....

Drafting.

Draft well, you win. Draft poorly, you suck for years.

There's no shock that the Bills, Browns, Texans, Dolphins, Lions, Cardinals haven't been that good in the past decade.

[parrishlynchevans]

Want to know the difference between the Pats of the league and us for the past decade, this season withstading....

Drafting.

Draft well, you win. Draft poorly, you suck for years.

There's no shock that the Bills, Browns, Texans, Dolphins, Lions, Cardinals haven't been that good in the past decade.

Exactly, I'd consider team construction a pretty big difference between the good and bad teams. That's not something that's only a marginal difference.

[Mr. Pink]

Exactly, I'd consider team construction a pretty big difference between the good and bad teams. That's not something that's only a marginal difference.

It really is a marginal difference though, you can have one to two solid drafts and be the "surprise" team. Then fade away the very next year.

Look at Cleveland last year for example, even though they didn't make the playoffs, but they're on pace to have a top ten pick yet again.

[parrishlynchevans]

It really is a marginal difference though, you can have one to two solid drafts and be the "surprise" team. Then fade away the very next year.

Look at Cleveland last year for example, even though they didn't make the playoffs, but they're on pace to have a top ten pick yet again.

Yeah a "surprise" team is a one year wonder. The Pats, Colts, Giants and Packers have all been perennial postseason teams in this decade. That's because they can construct a roster that will contend every single season. This difference between perennial and surprise teams is a lot bigger than some people make it out to be.

[Jan Reimers]

We have drafted quite well the past 3 seasons, and have made some key additions through free agency and trades. That is why we have finally come together as a team.

[SABURZFAN]

We have drafted quite well the past 3 seasons, and have made some key additions through free agency and trades. That is why we have finally come together as a team.


yes they have and if they continue to draft well for the next 3 seasons, the Bills could be a good football team for a long time.

[dannyek71]

You know you just titled this thread as you did to make yourself sound smart.

[SABURZFAN]

You know you just titled this thread as you did to make yourself sound smart.


it didn't work.

[parrishlynchevans]

You know you just titled this thread as you did to make yourself sound smart.

Is hyperbolizing that big of a word for you?

[SABURZFAN]

Is hyperbolizing that big of a word for you?


only when he's had a few drinks in him.

[Pinkerton Security]

Is hyperbolizing that big of a word for you?

*cough* thesaurus.com *cough*

[dannyek71]

hyperbolizing is a brimful lexical

[Oaf]

I think you're right ParrishLynchEvans

[ParanoidAndroid]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is very little difference, but the playing field does seem to be more level, especially in the AFC, this year than in years past.

[The last buffalo fan]

I think you're right ParrishLynchEvans

I think he is left.

[Philagape]

I think when people talk about parity, it's more in the context of what can happen week to week this season, in which case past playoff seasons are irrelevant. For example, the Patriots look pretty beatable now.

[X-Era]

I've heard quite a few people talk about how there's very little difference between the best team in the NFL and the worst team in the NFL. Aren't you hyperbolizing that just a bit?

Postseason Appearances

Pats: 6 out of 8 seasons
Colts: 7 out of 8 seasons
Giants: 5 out of 8 seasons
Packers: 5 out of 8 seasons

There's a reason why these teams are essentially perennial playoff teams. I think the difference between best and worst is a lot greater than some people on here make it out to be.

Not sure where your headed with the hyperbole analogy. If anything people are saying its a more linear.

Yes, there is still a difference between some teams and the rest oif the league, you mentioned 4 teams as your sampling for 32. Why is that not hen-picking data points.

Id rather see a discussion where you show teams that were perpetual crap vs. how they are now.

The arguement is about the amount of money spent. The cap has equaled the playing field quite a bit.

[Pinkerton Security]

Not sure where your headed with the hyperbole analogy. If anything people are saying its a more linear.

Yes, there is still a difference between some teams and the rest oif the league, you mentioned 4 teams as your sampling for 32. Why is that not hen-picking data points.

Id rather see a discussion where you show teams that were perpetual crap vs. how they are now.

The arguement is about the amount of money spent. The cap has equaled the playing field quite a bit.

not sure if you are joking or not but hyperbola is the U or v shaped graph, while a hyperbole is an exaggeration..

[jamze132]

We have drafted quite well the past 3 seasons, and have made some key additions through free agency and trades. That is why we have finally come together as a team.
I still credit Marv Levy for changing the attitude of the organization after the Donahoe debacle.

[don137]

With the Giants being the exception the other three teams have one thing in common. A first ballot HOF QB on their roster that is always healthy. The teams without a stud QB rise and fall fast thus the parity.
A stud QB can win games consistantly when behind late in the game that an avergae/good QB would not of been able to pull out the W with the same regularity.
Its not a coincidence that the Broncos, Bills and 49ers were always in the playoffs in the late 80's early 90s with the likes of Elway, Kelly and Montana/Young. Marino is the one exception because he had no surrounding cast and he could not beat Buffalo.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

NFL head coaches will tell you that the overall difference in talent--physical talent--is 2% top to bottom. Free agency may have increased that percentage slightly, as having a chance to play on a team that has a better chance of winning a Super Bowl can make top teams more attractive to some top players who will take less money to have a shot at a ring (Moss and Brady being examples of this) than they would want from a losing team. But, even so, the difference in physical talent is not that great.

Oakland is a perfect example of a bad football team that has a lot of physical talent. The Rams are another example of a lousy team with a number of good players (Holt, Bulger, Pace and Jackson are all Pro Bowl caliber players). But, having physically talented players is only part of the equation.

A major factor is getting quality play from the QB position. The NFL has become a QB driven league in many respects and, as has been pointed out, having a great QB greatly increases the chance that a team will not only be a winning team, but continue to be a good team for several years. That is the reason that teams go to extraordinary lengths to acquire a QB who has the potential to give them quality play at that position and will pay a fortune to keep a top-flight QB if they are lucky enough to find one.

Good coaching is important, but having a good HC is not a guarantee that a team will be good. There are plenty of examples of head coaches who had poor records and were fired from jobs early in their careers who have won Super Bowls. B.Belichick, who was a disaster in Cleveland, and B.Parcells, who very nearly was fired by the NY Giants, are classic examples of this.

Perhaps the most important factor that separates the top teams from the bottom feeders is the work ethic of the players as a group--and in this sense, work ethic does not just describe the amount of hours that the players are willing to put in, but also the desire to constantly work to get better and never be satisfied. If you look at the top teams in recent years, all of those teams have players who are absolutely driven to keep getting better. T.Owens may be a buffoon as a human being, but everywhere he has played, he has been described as one of the hardest or the hardest working player on the team. Tom Brady: players who have gone to the Pats have said in interviews that it is impossible not to work hard when they see how hard Brady works. Brady has frequently been quoted talking about how there are things that he still needs to work on and get better at. Peyton Manning is similarly driven.

The top physical talents coming out in any draft year are not always the kinds of players who have this quality. The Bills' Mike Williams, Detroit's Mike Williams, Cade McNown, any number of Arizona's top draft picks, etc., etc. The list is endless.

Teams that are able to assemble a core group of players and team leaders who have this work ethic and set a tone in the lockerroom that creates a peer pressure on the other players to work hard and organizations that emphasize that players will have this kind of work ethic or be gone tend to be successful. Those that fail to put together such a group of players or don't get that kind of leadership in the lockerroom or tolerate players who are less than driven, satisfied or enamoured of their own physical talents or stats tend to end up being losing teams.

The problems that often come up with regard to a team's drafting frequently revolve around that team's inability or unwillingness to look past a prospect's physical talents to determine whether he has these winning qualities. It isn't always easy to determine whether a young player possesses this kind of work ethic or not--if it were, teams would move up from the bottom of the league to the top far more quickly and there would be far fewer first round busts. The best teams--the perennial winners--have scouts and personnel directors who have a "feel" or sense that allows them to find a higher percentage of players who have those winning qualities. When they draft a player and put him in a lockerroom with team leaders and a core of players who have a similar work ethic and drive, those young players develop--sometimes very quickly--into good players themselves. Something very different happens on the perennial losers.

Obviously, there are other factors that go into the equation, but these are three of the most important ones that separate the winners from the losers.

Physical talent can be measured and quantified in statistics. In those terms, there is only a 2 % difference in talent between the top clubs and the bottom clubs. What is inside of a player, however, cannot be measured or quantified. It is there, though, that the difference between the perennial winners and the perennial losers--which can be considerable on the field and off--can be found.

When someone talks about there being parity in talent, more often than not, they are talking about the first of those categories--the measurable talent. And, in that sense, they would be correct. However, that talent is only part of the story. In real terms, including those that are not measurable, there isn't parity and that is quite evident on the field when the teams play.

[HughC]

One thing I'd add to LBF's list is upper management. The teams that seem to remain among the top, constantly making the playoffs, have intelligent and stable ownerships. With the exception of Jerry Jones, they stay out of football affairs and hire quality upper management. On one side you have for example the Colts, with Irsay-Polian-Dungy, and on the other end there are the Lions and Cardinals constantly hiring the wrong people.

Back to the original post, I disagree and still believe the talent of the players is close enough for any NFL team to beat any other team on any given Sunday - but that is just for one game. Over the course of an entire season the good teams (and organizations) will end up on top (barring major injuries), and the bad teams will drop to the bottom though.