Goodell's dream of parity has takin' a vacation in 2009

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

After seeing play in the past few weeks between the Elite and the Horrid teams, I have come to the conclusion that there are more BAD PATHETIC teams at this point in the season than at anytime in the 35 years that I have been watching this sport.

Are BAD teams simply not executing well? or maybe they are lacking in Talent? or are they simply not putting any effort in trying to win when they are down by 10 or more.

I see the bad teams practically throwing the towel in the 3rd quarter when down by more than 2 scores,it has become a trend this season.

We saw this in the past 2 games,The Titans were playing the Pats pretty tough for 1 quarter until NE started to score and it appeared that once the scores started building, they decided to quit.
The same yesterday when the Bucs scored to make it 21-7 then once NE got another TD to go to 28-7 they simply gave up,there was absolutely nothing left in their tank.

Like I said do you think its a matter of execution failure,lack of talent or no effort and giving up?

Kansas City,Cleveland,St. Louis,Oakland and Tampa Bay fit on this list - if not for one single game of intensity - KC,Cleveland and Oakland would have a doughnut in the win column like the other 2 - I give the Lions a pass since they have already improved their record from last season

I almost think that these crappy teams are all vying hard for who is going to get the number one pick in 2010

There could be 6 or 7 teams that win 3 games or less...That is simply the nightmare that Goodell could very well go through.

 

[JSn]

Thanks for posting this thread. I was thinking of posting something similar.

You could safely pencil in the playoff teams today, I think. The bad teams are just AWFUL this year. Parody is more like it.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Thanks for posting this thread. I was thinking of posting something similar.

You could safely pencil in the playoff teams today, I think. The bad teams are just AWFUL this year. Parody is more like it.

I have always been adamant in the past saying the old familiar phrase of 'Any Given Sunday' but in reality that has not been a factor this season - Its almost a sure win against these teams unless the GOOD team who plays the BAD team does not bring thier best game,The bad teams aren't bringing anything and the only time they will win appears to be when the good team fails to put normal effort in - like Oakland beating Philly - If the good teams play even close to normal there is no way the bad teams can win.

 

[jmt57]

Salary Cap having an effect on parity in the NFL?

Remember just a few seasons ago it seemed like more than half the league was 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7. Add a couple of two or three loss team, a couple of two or three win teams, and that was the NFL. Sure doesn't look like that will be the case this year.

I think the reason for the shift is directly related to the salary cap. At first there were only a few teams that 'got it' in terms of how to field a winning team under the salary cap over several years. Now more seem to be catching on - though there are a few that still seem to have no clue.

The other component is the size of the cap itself. It used to be a given that every team would spend pretty much right up to the cap. Now we have several teams that are nowhere close, with some that may have trouble reaching the salary floor. Whether that is because the cap is too high, or some teams are financially preparing for a possible lockout is uncertain. But the bottom line is there is now more of a delta between the highest and lowest spending teams than we have been used to seeing, and I think that may be tied to 2009 having more very good teams and more very bad teams, relative to what we have seen in the recent past.

 

[Synovia]

Somebody clearly doesn't know what Parity means.


Parity doesn't mean 32 .500 teams. Parity means that it only takes a year or two to rebuild, and that the teams at the top and bottom cycle pretty quickly.

 

[BelichickFan]

Why is this Roger's dream ? The concept of "parity" goes back to the days of Pete Rozelle. I imagine Roger would like it but parity isn't "his thing".

 

[Bill B.]

Another factor in this is the amount of teams and also free agency. With 32 teams the talent level gets thinned out trying stock all these teams with quality players. When someone becomes a free agent, they are more likely to want to sign with a contender rather than sign with a team that is not that good, even if they have to make less money to do so. That is why you see teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots at the top every year. The same goes for coaching and front office personell. The good teams attract the better talent.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Salary Cap having an effect on parity in the NFL?

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the good teams have pretty much figured out how to manage the cap through scouting, drafting and free agency under the current league rules, and the best coaches are better than they've ever been. When the FOs and coaches of the best teams are raising the bar to such a high level, all of the crappy teams that fall way short are going to look even worse by comparison.

The NFL also currently features more good QBs right now than, IMO, it has in a while. We're kinda at that convergence right now where Brady, Manning, Brees, Palmer and McNabb are still in their primes, the Flacco, Ryan, Roethisberger, Manning, Rodgers, Rivers, etc. are entering theirs. Throw in a pretty good year for Favre so far, Schaub playing out of his mind, Romo being not bad... it adds up. And once again, makes the teams trotting out Josh Johnson as their starting QB look even worse. The best QB on any of the awful teams is Matt Cassel, and the Chiefs are in year one of a straight-up overhaul. None of the other crap teams have a good QB that I can think of, and that does not strike me as a coincidence.

 

[sieglo]

Re: Salary Cap having an effect on parity in the NFL?

The more pass-centric the NFL becomes, the more difficult it will be to maintain a semblance of parity. There are only a handful of elite QBs, after all.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I think it can partially be blamed on the outrageous rookie contracts given out. If you miss on a top-10 pick, it hurts your team for a LONG time.

 

[maverick4]

The rookie salaries are the reason for no parity.

All the bad teams are stuck with crappy rookies to expensive, long term deals that cripple the cap.


The only way to help make bad teams competitive, is to institute a rookie pay scale, so that a rookie who never played a snap and could be a huge bust, isn't making more than a quality vet.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Why is this Roger's dream ? The concept of "parity" goes back to the days of Pete Rozelle. I imagine Roger would like it but parity isn't "his thing".

I think Goodell DOES want much more parity where the top to bottom teams are about 7 or less games apart - While its near impossible for this to happen I am sure he would like to see closer results.

Better parity means more interest and more sales from merchandise that would occur if a team like the Browns makes an effort to win games - Whats good for the NFL is NOT Dominating teams and teams that almost cant win,it needs better competition week in and week out that the NFL truly seeks.

A commisioner does hope that the league is exciting and almost unpredictable as it has been for decades,but so far this year 90% of the time you can predict the good team will pound the bad team and be right about it and it won't get any better when the GOOD teams start playing do or die games for the playoffs and perform on an even higher level.

You have to agree that this weeks poundings which was more than half the games played was not something we would like to see weekly,it makes games boring unless you are the fan of the winning team.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The rookie salaries are the reason for no parity.

All the bad teams are stuck with crappy rookies to expensive, long term deals that cripple the cap.


The only way to help make bad teams competitive, is to institute a rookie pay scale, so that a rookie who never played a snap and could be a huge bust, isn't making more than a quality vet.

The Rookie cap will be in place within 3 years,book it.

 

[patsfan-1982]

it take's leadership from top to bottem to win in the NFL from owner to GM to coach

the good

denver broncos owner Pat Bowlen it takes a lot of guts to fire mike shanahan and replace him with Josh McDaniels a young OC who then make's you trade away your star QB

but he put he's trust is josh and now they maybe the best team in the NFL right now

the bad

washington redskins owner Daniel Snyder who all was hire's the wrong HC and over pay's every year for FA who have only had one good year in the NFL

thats what sit's team's apart good drafting good HC and good owner

that's why the pats the colts and the stellers are at the top all most every year

 

[rhodeisland]

Somebody clearly doesn't know what Parity means.


Parity doesn't mean 32 .500 teams. Parity means that it only takes a year or two to rebuild, and that the teams at the top and bottom cycle pretty quickly.

That's actually not what parity means at all. Parity is closer to your first definition. It means equality.

 

[thechris]

I think it can partially be blamed on the outrageous rookie contracts given out. If you miss on a top-10 pick, it hurts your team for a LONG time.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

And there are really bad teams every year. I don't think that this year is an exception.

 

[spacecrime]

Somebody clearly doesn't know what Parity means.


Parity doesn't mean 32 .500 teams. Parity means that it only takes a year or two to rebuild, and that the teams at the top and bottom cycle pretty quickly.

I was going to post this myself.

With parity there is constannt flux in the standings year by year. It does not mean by week 7 we have 16 teams 4-3 and 16 teams 3-4. It means that the division winners are not a lock to repeat year after year, and the bottom dwellers are not a lock to remain bottom dwellers.

Does anyone seriously think we will have the same 8 division winners as last year? I'm predicting that at least half the division winners will change, maybe there will only be two repeat divison leaders..

Where were the Titans at this time last year?

For a run there, whoever finished last in NFCS won the division the following year.

That's parity, not 32 .500 teams.

That's actually not what parity means at all. Parity is closer to your first definition. It means equality.

If you are in a grade-school English class you are 100% right. It's right there in the dictionary.

Unfortunately, dictionary definitions and NFL definitions are not the same. Look up interference and see if Webster mentions an arm bar. Then look up screen and see if Webster says anything about offensive linemen out in front of a receiver.

 

[spacecrime]

I almost think that these crappy teams are all vying hard for who is going to get the number one pick in 2010

That's unenlightened fan talk.

Players play for pride, because they love to play, and for the money. None of those are served by playing poorly so his team will get a better draft pick next April. It won't help him because if he plays poorly the team will cut him, and he won't get a good contract because the film on him shows him sucking.

And anyway, who the hell thinks it is a good thing to get the first pick in the draft, and guarantee 40 million dollars to a guy as likely to be a bust and any help, and will screw up your salary structure for years to come.

I would hate for the Pats to get the #1 pick.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last season, there was a team that went winless and two teams that only won 2 games.

In 2005, there were 7 teams with 4 wins or fewer.

In 2001, there was a 1 win team, a 2 win team, a 3 win team and a trio of 5 win teams.

This stuff happens.

 

[falloutboy14]

Re: Salary Cap having an effect on parity in the NFL?

The more pass-centric the NFL becomes, the more difficult it will be to maintain a semblance of parity. There are only a handful of elite QBs, after all.

Something I heard on TV recently, which I agree with, is that the depth at the QB position in the league is deeper then it's ever been. I think there are about 16 super bowl quality QBs. By that I mean, if you put them wit ha good D and a good O-line, they can compete with anyone.

Matt Schaub is leading the league in passing yards, but their defense is absolute trash. Same story with the Chargers. Rivers seems able to drop 28 points on any team, but that D can't keep anyone below 30. In the same way, it's not Aaron Rodgers or Cutler that's holding their team back, it's the O-line. And then there's the Bears' receivers.

I think the biggest difference between the good and the bad teams is being smart with drafting & free-agency. There's a reason the Raiders & Lions are leading the league with losses for the decade, obviously their ability to miss on high first-rounders are a double-whammy with the signing money.

Meanwhile the high-priced talent that fans love som much seems to be as hit-or-miss as the draft. For every Drew Brees(6 years, $60 mil), or Michael Turner (6 yr, $35 mil) there seems to be 5 Nate Clements (8 years $80 mil, Deangelo Halls (7 years, $70 mil), or I hate to say it, Edgerin James's (4 years, $30 mil). The truth is that teams are paying top-dollar, or near it, for past-performance in a different scheme/system. Projecting what the team might do in the scheme run by the new team, in a way similar to the draft.