Jump to content

NFL PARITY....Really?


CanadaSteve

Recommended Posts

The league touts parity.....I call BS.

Stats in the past 10 years say otherwise:

Jets made the playoffs 3 times, with 2 AFC Championship losses.

CIN made the playoffs 5x, KC 3x, HOU 3x SD 2x, Jax/Ten/Mia once each.  San Diego made the AFC Championship once.

The rest of the AFC:

New England: 9 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 3-4; Super Bowl: 1-2

Indianapolis: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 2-1, Super Bowl: 1-1

Baltimore: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 1-2, Super Bowl: 1-0

Pittsburgh: 6 playoff appearances, AFC Championshiop: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1

Denver: 5 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1
 

So, for the past ten years, it has been only  5 teams representing the AFC in the Super Bowl and the AFC championship game, except for the 1 SD appearance and 2 Jet appearances. 

Think of it this way; outside the 5 royalty teams, only the Jets got into the club the most!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

It's all about the QB, if you have a good one you can 'rebuild and stay competitive' if you don't, don't even try because you will just spin the wheels.

We do, and his name is Hackenberg, and you and the rest of us will probably meet him by week 6-7 this year.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

The league touts parity.....I call BS.

Stats in the past 10 years say otherwise:

Jets made the playoffs 3 times, with 2 AFC Championship losses.

CIN made the playoffs 5x, KC 3x, HOU 3x SD 2x, Jax/Ten/Mia once each.  San Diego made the AFC Championship once.

The rest of the AFC:

New England: 9 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 3-4; Super Bowl: 1-2

Indianapolis: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 2-1, Super Bowl: 1-1

Baltimore: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 1-2, Super Bowl: 1-0

Pittsburgh: 6 playoff appearances, AFC Championshiop: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1

Denver: 5 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1
 

So, for the past ten years, it has been only  5 teams representing the AFC in the Super Bowl and the AFC championship game, except for the 1 SD appearance and 2 Jet appearances. 

Think of it this way; outside the 5 royalty teams, only the Jets got into the club the most!

Parity is a marketing campaign, not an actual thing.

NFL wants big names, big markets, and big ratings - but not at the expenses of telling certain cities their teams will never win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

The league touts parity.....I call BS.

Stats in the past 10 years say otherwise:

Jets made the playoffs 3 times, with 2 AFC Championship losses.

CIN made the playoffs 5x, KC 3x, HOU 3x SD 2x, Jax/Ten/Mia once each.  San Diego made the AFC Championship once.

The rest of the AFC:

New England: 9 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 3-4; Super Bowl: 1-2

Indianapolis: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 2-1, Super Bowl: 1-1

Baltimore: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 1-2, Super Bowl: 1-0

Pittsburgh: 6 playoff appearances, AFC Championshiop: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1

Denver: 5 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1
 

So, for the past ten years, it has been only  5 teams representing the AFC in the Super Bowl and the AFC championship game, except for the 1 SD appearance and 2 Jet appearances. 

Think of it this way; outside the 5 royalty teams, only the Jets got into the club the most!

okay, that's for the past 10 seasons but i think if you look at previous blocks of 10 seasons you might see the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snell41 said:

There is complete parity.....monetarily speaking. The problem is the NFL game relies on QB, and there are not 32 men in the world who can play QB.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Isn't that incredible? Think about it, how many football players there at in this Country alone between the ages of 19-25 for example and how few of them can play QB. The ratio is mind boggling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rangerous said:

okay, that's for the past 10 seasons but i think if you look at previous blocks of 10 seasons you might see the same thing.

Oh, remember the Dallas teams, SF teams, Buffalo team of the 90's....you are spot on here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parity to me seems to say that of all the sucky teams, you have as much chance as anyone else at getting hot, winning a WC spot, and getting murdered in the playoffs. 

But if you're a non-sucky team with one of the few really elite QBs, you can pretty much look forward to ten or more years of contention.

To go from sucky to non-sucky ... win the QB draft lottery. A New Hope every April, and may the odds be ever in your favour ... keeps the fans engaged all year round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Beerfish said:

It's all about the QB, if you have a good one you can 'rebuild and stay competitive' if you don't, don't even try because you will just spin the wheels.

The NFL has become the NBA.  In the NBA you can't possibly win a title without one of the 5-6 best players on the planet on your roster, and if you don't have one, tank until you get one.

The main difference is NBA rosters have about 12 people and NFL rosters 53.  There's no reason one position should dominate and make the other 52 guys/21 positions on the field so much less important.  But because the NFL sucks, it's exactly what's happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ASH1962 said:

Isn't that incredible? Think about it, how many football players there at in this Country alone between the ages of 19-25 for example and how few of them can play QB. The ratio is mind boggling...

It's part of the reason High School coaches are more willing to put guys at QB that don't fit the prototypical build.  In the past, guys like Big Ben and Cam Newton would have ended up Linebackers.  Now, kids with that big body type, or even a smallish one but with a big arm, are encouraged to play QB because of how valuable the position is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

1.There are only a handful of elite QBs.

2.The league rules are very tilted towards QB friendly.

3. This is the opposite of parity.   

Yes, but the parity exists in that every team has had opportunities to acquire such QBs. It's not like the league keeps certain QBs away from small market teams. 

When such QBs go #1 overall (or thereabouts), there isn't much you can do about it if you can't reach that slot. But every playoff QB didn't go in the top 10. Frankly, most did not. 

There are only a handful of QBs we had no chance at getting Luck, Palmer (as a rookie), Cam, Eli, Stafford, maybe Rivers, and who else? Actually there were other unattainable QBs, but they weren't worth drafting in the first place (Jamarcus, etc.)

Roethlisberger was right there. We had to move up all of 2 slots to get him, but chose to stick with Chad & took Vilma at #12. We could have moved up for Matt Ryan -- he was offered to us and we said no. We could have traded up for Mariota if we made a high enough offer. We could have had Rodgers if we didn't place more value on Chad and getting him the Raiders' scrub TE. Brady, obviously anyone could have had. Ditto Wilson. Ditto Dak in 2016, Flacco in '08, Carr, and others.

It's much easier with a high pick, if it comes at the right time, because there are more options available. But the Jets suck because when they made a serious investment in a young QB they not only chose poorly but then often doubled-down on those poor choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yes, but the parity exists in that every team has had opportunities to acquire such QBs. It's not like the league keeps certain QBs away from small market teams. 

When such QBs go #1 overall (or thereabouts), there isn't much you can do about it if you can't reach that slot. But every playoff QB didn't go in the top 10. Frankly, most did not. 

There are only a handful of QBs we had no chance at getting Luck, Palmer (as a rookie), Cam, Eli, Stafford, maybe Rivers, and who else? Actually there were other unattainable QBs, but they weren't worth drafting in the first place (Jamarcus, etc.)

Roethlisberger was right there. We had to move up all of 2 slots to get him, but chose to stick with Chad & took Vilma at #12. We could have moved up for Matt Ryan -- he was offered to us and we said no. We could have traded up for Mariota if we made a high enough offer. We could have had Rodgers if we didn't place more value on Chad and getting him the Raiders' scrub TE. Brady, obviously anyone could have had. Ditto Wilson. Ditto Dak in 2016, Flacco in '08, Carr, and others.

It's much easier with a high pick, if it comes at the right time, because there are more options available. But the Jets suck because when they made a serious investment in a young QB they not only chose poorly but then often doubled-down on those poor choices.

This is the one thing I am disliking about the NFL:  EVERYTHING revolves around the QB now.  But that is the reality, and if that is the reality, I do not understand why owners and FO personnel just do not keep drafting QB's every year and keep 3-4 until you either hit on one if you don't have one, or sit on 1-2 while you do have one to keep the QB gravy train rolling. 

Everyone talks about the GENIUS of BB, but he was nothing until he lucked out finding Brady.  Brady is responsible for a good portion of that genius. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yes, but the parity exists in that every team has had opportunities to acquire such QBs. It's not like the league keeps certain QBs away from small market teams. 

When such QBs go #1 overall (or thereabouts), there isn't much you can do about it if you can't reach that slot. But every playoff QB didn't go in the top 10. Frankly, most did not. 

There are only a handful of QBs we had no chance at getting Luck, Palmer (as a rookie), Cam, Eli, Stafford, maybe Rivers, and who else? Actually there were other unattainable QBs, but they weren't worth drafting in the first place (Jamarcus, etc.)

Roethlisberger was right there. We had to move up all of 2 slots to get him, but chose to stick with Chad & took Vilma at #12. We could have moved up for Matt Ryan -- he was offered to us and we said no. We could have traded up for Mariota if we made a high enough offer. We could have had Rodgers if we didn't place more value on Chad and getting him the Raiders' scrub TE. Brady, obviously anyone could have had. Ditto Wilson. Ditto Dak in 2016, Flacco in '08, Carr, and others.

It's much easier with a high pick, if it comes at the right time, because there are more options available. But the Jets suck because when they made a serious investment in a young QB they not only chose poorly but then often doubled-down on those poor choices.

Teams are close it comes down to the Coaching and the QB of which a lot of teams including us have neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CanadaSteve said:

This is the one thing I am disliking about the NFL:  EVERYTHING revolves around the QB now.  But that is the reality, and if that is the reality, I do not understand why owners and FO personnel just do not keep drafting QB's every year and keep 3-4 until you either hit on one if you don't have one, or sit on 1-2 while you do have one to keep the QB gravy train rolling. 

Everyone talks about the GENIUS of BB, but he was nothing until he lucked out finding Brady.  Brady is responsible for a good portion of that genius. 

The genius of BB is he cheats.

If I had to list my own "one thing I am disliking about the NFL" it's that the Jets aren't good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yes, but the parity exists in that every team has had opportunities to acquire such QBs. It's not like the league keeps certain QBs away from small market teams. 

When such QBs go #1 overall (or thereabouts), there isn't much you can do about it if you can't reach that slot. But every playoff QB didn't go in the top 10. Frankly, most did not. 

There are only a handful of QBs we had no chance at getting Luck, Palmer (as a rookie), Cam, Eli, Stafford, maybe Rivers, and who else? Actually there were other unattainable QBs, but they weren't worth drafting in the first place (Jamarcus, etc.)

Roethlisberger was right there. We had to move up all of 2 slots to get him, but chose to stick with Chad & took Vilma at #12. We could have moved up for Matt Ryan -- he was offered to us and we said no. We could have traded up for Mariota if we made a high enough offer. We could have had Rodgers if we didn't place more value on Chad and getting him the Raiders' scrub TE. Brady, obviously anyone could have had. Ditto Wilson. Ditto Dak in 2016, Flacco in '08, Carr, and others.

It's much easier with a high pick, if it comes at the right time, because there are more options available. But the Jets suck because when they made a serious investment in a young QB they not only chose poorly but then often doubled-down on those poor choices.

Sorry but I think you missed the point.  I'm not talking about our Jets here.  I'm talking about the league and the rules that are SOOOOO QB friendly.  Since there is an extremely limited pool of elite QBs there can never be parity among teams, never.  

A rules change to deemphasize the QB is the only way to achieve parity.  Yon can argue about the league's motivation but you can't deny that the current rules preclude parity.   

Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety but to me football used to be more fun to watch back in the day before the rules tilts.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

Sorry but I think you missed the point.  I'm not talking about our Jets here.  I'm talking about the league and the rules that are SOOOOO QB friendly.  Since there is an extremely limited pool of elite QBs there can never be parity among teams, never.  

A rules change to deemphasize the QB is the only way to achieve parity.  Yon can argue about the league's motivation but you can't deny that the current rules preclude parity.     

Oh I got the point. My response to that is we all play by the same rules and have those same options available to us.

Teams that use 4 high draft picks on DTs (and continue to when we already have 2 and then 3 of them), safeties, ILBers, TEs, etc. - and yes, fail to properly tank the final meaningless game of a 3-win season - don't get to complain about not having a QB in a league that's been QB-driven for so long.

Well, you can complain as a fan; it's not your fault. But if it's so obvious that it's so important, and if we're so bad at picking just one, than hoard 3 QBs each in back to back drafts for all I care, and if all 6 of them suck, then try it again the next year. We're not winning a SB without real one and it's past time we stopped trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parity exists in the NFL about as much as it can. The NFL would put out a boring game if it took away the emphasis on scoring. I would agree that the league has gone too far towards propping up fantasy football but the need for a franchise QB to be competitive dates back far behind recent passing game-friendly rules. The NFL balances opportunities to fill the roster but not all teams work within the rules equally. NFL teams could accept that the players coming out of college play a different game today and adjust accordingly. They don't do a good job of that either. 

The NFL doesn't control the development or availability of good QBs out of college; however, most teams seem to spend insufficient resources towards developing their young QBs. We are a really good example. We basically did nothing with Hackenburg this year and it doesn't seem like much was done with Petty since drafting him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

They sell a brand on parity that will help all teams to keep competition fair and everyone having a chance.....B.S.

There are only a handful of teams winning, as proven by the results.

I don't know why that even matters. sh*tty teams continue to get good draft picks and they continue to suck (Browns, Raiders pre-Carr). Its not the NFL's fault at all. The parity lies within salary cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...