The Parity topic

[trapezeus]

Do you ever wonder if all the Parity in the NFL is just because players have changed so much over the last 10 years. i read the Peter King article about the Cutler trade. And Jerry Angelo, the Bear's GM said, "it's so hard to know about the draft now. A while back a top ten pick was the holy grail. now you don't know. These kids come out younger, less developed for more money. You can't tell if their drive is there or not."

In some ways, i wonder if the parity is simply because teams have a harder time now on picking playeres because the salaries have really skewed the players mindset. Now you don't know if you are paying someone and they'll just leave the game as a secondary endevour or if they are the real deal. And parity is just a result of chaos around the league.

I think "Parity" praise that the NFL uses may not totally be by design but instead just a byproduct of escalating salaries.

I was just thinking outloud. If that makes sense and you have an opinion one way or the other, put it out there.

[ddaryl]

Most people are motivated by the carrot (money). that is dangle a carrot (money) in front of you and you chase it till you get it.

That big payday is the drive that pushes many college players to excel in sports. So yes, i would agree there are a solid portion of college players that are dirven for that payday and when they get it, they lose the drive because there is no longer a carrot left to dangle that motivates them.

Serperating the football motivated from the money motivated is the new job of the modern NFL GM

Top 10 picks have become as much as a punishment as a reward for teams who finish with the worst record, and the NFL knows this, I fully expect to see future rookie contracts having a seperate cap of their own in the next NFL CBA

[trapezeus]

especially in a year like this when there are no thrilling top 10 picks. People who go in the top ten are going because they are in a position that a team needs. They aren't light years ahead of other players. if that makes any sense.

[psubills62]

Do you ever wonder if all the Parity in the NFL is just because players have changed so much over the last 10 years. i read the Peter King article about the Cutler trade. And Jerry Angelo, the Bear's GM said, "it's so hard to know about the draft now. A while back a top ten pick was the holy grail. now you don't know. These kids come out younger, less developed for more money. You can't tell if their drive is there or not."

In some ways, i wonder if the parity is simply because teams have a harder time now on picking playeres because the salaries have really skewed the players mindset. Now you don't know if you are paying someone and they'll just leave the game as a secondary endevour or if they are the real deal. And parity is just a result of chaos around the league.

I think "Parity" praise that the NFL uses may not totally be by design but instead just a byproduct of escalating salaries.

I was just thinking outloud. If that makes sense and you have an opinion one way or the other, put it out there.

I think you've nailed the main problem. I think there are other possible factors, too.

1) I don't know much of anything at all about football history, especially college football history. But I'd be willing to bet that back in the day, college football schemes were much more similar to pro football schemes. That is, colleges mainly didn't run the spread. I'd also be willing to bet that college football coaches tried to help the players not only do well at college football, but also prepare for the NFL.

2) The NFL schemes, both offensively and defensively, have required players that are more mentally prepared and versatile.

Like I said, I'm not well versed on football history. But probably a while back, running backs weren't asked to be receivers as much as they are now. Linebackers didn't need to blitz or cover as much.

Nowadays, if you get a star linebacker, he needs to be good to great in a lot of areas. Cornerbacks need to hold up against the run as well as be able to run with receivers.

The versatility means that players may be strong in certain areas, but there are going to be areas they are weak in. And some players might not be able to grasp an offense or defense mentally, whereas they would have thrived simply on physical ability 20 years ago.


Maybe I'm way off base. I think those two things may contribute to players not appearing to be as good prospects. I think trapezeus nailed the main point, though.

[trapezeus]

PSU, i think you're right on the differences beween the two. And that supports my point that the NFL says parity as a good thing and perhaps parity is a sign of a bad thing. players who don't get it and don't care vs. 10-20 years ago.

[Ingtar33]

last i checked the same teams that were dominant in 2003 are dominant now...

the Steelers, Pats, Colts and Eagles

those 4 teams always seem to be in the top 8... i wonder where this "parity" thing is. Looks just like the 1990s... and 1980s... and 1970s... (mostly different teams, but still, 4 or so teams dominating)

[Jan Reimers]

The inverse draft, the salary cap, free agency, and the scheduling process (or at least 2 games of it) are all devices that the NFL uses to promote parity.

But as Ingtar rightfully points out, there are still a handful of teams that are consistently dominant. And that's just human nature, as their FOs are better at managing the parity-related mechanisms than are the other teams.

[User Manuel]

The just want $$$$, parity happened to be a side effect of the system.

Plus Parity is the wrong word, I prefer accross-the-board-mediocrity.

[MikeInRoch]

Can someone please tell me how to assess if the league truly has 'parity'? I really don't think it does...

[User Manuel]

Can someone please tell me how to assess if the league truly has 'parity'? I really don't think it does...

I think it means that every year there are 2-5 really good teams and the rest all suck.

It also means that teams like Dallas, etc that have the largest payrolls aren't always winning.

[trapezeus]

PAtriots were dominant, but missed the playoffs, no? Giants were dominant but trailed off at the end. Steelers have 2 superbowls, but also have missed the playoffs inbetween.

IT's not like in baseball where the redsox or yankees will be in it til the AL championship at the very least.

[Ingtar33]

PAtriots were dominant, but missed the playoffs, no? Giants were dominant but trailed off at the end. Steelers have 2 superbowls, but also have missed the playoffs inbetween.

IT's not like in baseball where the redsox or yankees will be in it til the AL championship at the very least.

Patriots
2001 - 11-5 (superbowl win)
2002 - 9-7 (missed playoffs by tiebreaker)
2003 - 14-2 (superbowl win)
2004 - 14-2 (superbowl win)
2005 - 10-6 (lost in div round, final 8)
2006 - 12-4 (lost in conf champ, final 4)
2007 - 16-0 (lost in superbowl, final 2)
2008 - 11-5 (missed playoffs by tiebreaker)
Ave Record - 12-4

Top 8 finishes - 6 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 5 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 3 for 4

Colts
2001 - 6-10
2002 - 10-6 (lost in wildcard game)
2003 - 12-4 (lost in afc championship game, final 4)
2004 - 12-4 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2005 - 14-2 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2006 - 12-4 (won superbowl)
2007 - 13-3 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2008 - 12-4 (lost in wildcard game)
Ave Record - 11- 5

Top 8 finishes - 5 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 3 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 1 for 1

Steelers
2001 - 13-3 (lost in afc championship game, final 4)
2002 - 10-5-1 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2003 - 6-10
2004 - 15-1 (lost in afc championship game, final 4)
2005 - 11-5 (won superbowl)
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 10-6 (lost in wildcard round)
2008 - 12-4 (won superbowl)
Ave Record - 11-5

Top 8 Finishes - 5 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 4 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 2 for 2

Eagles
2001 - 11-5 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
2002 - 12-4 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
2003 - 12-4 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
2004 - 13-3 (lost in superbowl, final 2)
2005 - 6-10
2006 - 10-6 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2007 - 8-8
2008 - 9-6 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
Ave Record - 10-6

Top 8 Finishes - 6 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 4 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 0 for 1


how is this not total domination by 4 teams? we have 6 of 8 superbowls won in this group (the other two were won by the giants and the bucs), had the eagles not choked agaisnt the Bucs, we probably would have had 7 of 8...

hell the two times the pats missed the playoffs it was due to a tiebreaker.

[bflojohn]

The concept I like most is the worst to first scenario that quite a few teams have lived out. The structure of the NFL allows for rapid turnaround IF, and only IF, the team "gets it" with regard to the parity angle. The best thing about the league is the level playing field, whereby, poor teams draft higher and the monies spent are divided equally amongst the clubs (Television revenues, NFL properties etc.) so a competitive atmosphere always seems to exist. Do I subscribe to all of this? Hardly, since it is my feeling that losing franchises universally get jobed on calls during games and to establish yourself, one must defeat the team your playing and all the officials that day!! However, it can be done S-L-O-W-L-Y throughout any year when the given team works its way to the top. I do NOT concede the point about every roster being virtually the same, talent wise (Popular misconception!) because Quarterback alone skews that measure! There is immense talent league wide, however, the Bills seldom send players to the Pro Bowl anymore, and this points up the FACT that each team is NOT equal to there league breathern! It just isn't so folks!!

[trapezeus]

Patriots
2001 - 11-5 (superbowl win)
2002 - 9-7 (missed playoffs by tiebreaker)
2003 - 14-2 (superbowl win)
2004 - 14-2 (superbowl win)
2005 - 10-6 (lost in div round, final 8)
2006 - 12-4 (lost in conf champ, final 4)
2007 - 16-0 (lost in superbowl, final 2)
2008 - 11-5 (missed playoffs by tiebreaker)
Ave Record - 12-4

Top 8 finishes - 6 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 5 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 3 for 4

Colts
2001 - 6-10
2002 - 10-6 (lost in wildcard game)
2003 - 12-4 (lost in afc championship game, final 4)
2004 - 12-4 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2005 - 14-2 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2006 - 12-4 (won superbowl)
2007 - 13-3 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2008 - 12-4 (lost in wildcard game)
Ave Record - 11- 5

Top 8 finishes - 5 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 3 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 1 for 1

Steelers
2001 - 13-3 (lost in afc championship game, final 4)
2002 - 10-5-1 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2003 - 6-10
2004 - 15-1 (lost in afc championship game, final 4)
2005 - 11-5 (won superbowl)
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 10-6 (lost in wildcard round)
2008 - 12-4 (won superbowl)
Ave Record - 11-5

Top 8 Finishes - 5 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 4 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 2 for 2

Eagles
2001 - 11-5 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
2002 - 12-4 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
2003 - 12-4 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
2004 - 13-3 (lost in superbowl, final 2)
2005 - 6-10
2006 - 10-6 (lost in divisional round, final 8)
2007 - 8-8
2008 - 9-6 (lost in nfc championship game, final 4)
Ave Record - 10-6

Top 8 Finishes - 6 out of 8 years
Top 4 Finishes - 4 out of 8 years
Superbowls - 0 for 1


how is this not total domination by 4 teams? we have 6 of 8 superbowls won in this group (the other two were won by the giants and the bucs), had the eagles not choked agaisnt the Bucs, we probably would have had 7 of 8...

hell the two times the pats missed the playoffs it was due to a tiebreaker.

can't argue with these kind of stats.