Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
Goodell has sure gotten what he wanted with the amount of parity, but do you like that there aren't 'dynasty' teams anymore? As of right now, there are 24 teams within 2 games of a division lead. Is a hodgepodge of mediocrity necessarily a good thing?
-
Loads better than the 3-team English Premier League or the 2-team La Liga (Spain) (I'm guessing they and the NFL are the highest revenue-generating pro leagues in the world).
-
To me it looks like Steelers, Pats, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, and Colts are on top while The Bills, Bengals, Cards, 49ers, Texans, Lions and Panthers all stink. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sure there were some weird results for a couple weeks and Holmgren seems to have the Browns pointed in the right direction (but is that actually surprising?), but come season's end it sure seems like things are going to be as they should be if they aren't already.
Edited By: Autolobotomist Nov 15th, 2010 at 04:20 AM -
Jets, Packers, Falcons, Saints? None of them?
Originally Posted by Autolobotomist
To me it looks like Steelers, Pats, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, and Colts are on top while The Bills, Bengals, Cards, 49ers, Texans, Lions and Panthers all stink. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sure there were some weird results for a couple weeks and Holmgren seems to have the Browns pointed in the right direction (but is that actually surprising?), but come season's end it sure seems like things are going to be as they should be if they aren't already.
-
Thank you. This might be the first time I've seen this spelled correctly in OT. thank you thank you thank you
-
i dont think theres as much parity as you think. the pats, steelers, ravens, colts, titans, packers, eagles alwys win. i mean sure there are a lot of teams that come and go each year but these teams are always at the top. its really a coachs and QB league. once you lock those two things up you will be great every year.
-
Originally Posted by wantagolf
I don't know. I do know i use to really get excited to watch Dallas v San Fran back in the day and i hated both teams, but it was must watch TV. Also Indy v Pats.
This remains incorrect-the phrase is 'used to'.Originally Posted by Luho
Thank you. This might be the first time I've seen this spelled correctly in OT. thank you thank you thank you
As far as parity goes, evidence is seen every week-the latest team proclaimed best in NFC got whacked today, which means it will be another on the block in Week 11. In the AFC, I'm sure Jets have their comeuppance awaiting them, now that they appear the best of the lot over there. Never seen anything like it. -
The Jets haven't been good since the 60's so I don't think there's expectations of things being "as they should be" with them on top. The Falcons have never been relevant ever so no expectations of things being "as they should be" with them on top. I could have included the Saints and Pack if I were looking at standings or had eidetic memory or something.
I don't know why I'm explaining as it seems the point was lost on you anyway.
Wow, I had no idea there was even a distinction, and I use who and whom correctly (for the most part). This is really grammar nazi-ish. -
son of a bitch...you're right...I looked it up...Stupid English
Originally Posted by hushpuckena
This remains incorrect-the phrase is 'used to'.
As far as parity goes, evidence is seen every week-the latest team proclaimed best in NFC got whacked today, which means it will be another on the block in Week 11. In the AFC, I'm sure Jets have their comeuppance awaiting them, now that they appear the best of the lot over there. Never seen anything like it.
Yeah...I was wrong...My 4.0 in high school is all garbage now
Disregard what I said...I'm an idiot -
According to the website I pulled up to clarify it looks like he spelled it correctly. "Used to"=accustomed to, "use to" something happened once, but not anymore.
-
I think I was better off being ignorant. I'm more confused than ever.
Edited By: Autolobotomist Nov 15th, 2010 at 04:49 AM
Reason: or maybe I just skimmed the page and didn't read it all. :) -
i disagree.. i think there is tons of parity, at least in the upper echelon of teams.. prior seasons, you could at least name 1 team that would make the conference champ.. i mean, im not so sure we can do that this season. i dont think anybody would bet their life if they had to pick one NFC team to make it.. i mean is it ATL? GB? i really dont know.. cant count out NO.. i doubt its the bears, but they are winning. Can Vick really do the whole storybook lead them to the dance? Giants of course can contend.. AFC - Colts D is too garbage, i think they can get exploited.. Pitt is way to inconsistent on Offense as shown tonight.. Im still not a believer in the Pats, but they ahve been doing well. Jets by name are scary, but on the field they arent dominating like i thought they would. Tennessee w./ vince young is dirty. Ravens.. always dirty, but very beatable.. season is fucking crazy man.. i love it. playoff games are going to be sick this year. glad that rule change cin the postseason ame into play this season, i have a feeling its going toto make for some crazy situations..
-
nope, i love seeing the same teams win every single year... makes it interesting
Edited By: Hallettcopta Nov 15th, 2010 at 04:50 AM -
Dynasties are boring.
-
That phenomenon of saying or reading a word too many times making it seem weird is the craziest shit. I'm glad to hear that it happens to others.
-
I do enjoy the parity, but there are only so many teams who can realistically win a Super Bowl with their current rosters. But it will make for a good last few weeks of the season (hopefully) in terms of playoff positioning, so that'll be fun to watch. IMO though I think whoever has the most momentum going into the playoffs this year has the best chance of winning it all.
-
As long as a team like the Seahawks doesn't somehow make it into the Superbowl
-
How dare you.
Originally Posted by SerlinSteak19
As long as a team like the Seahawks doesn't somehow make it into the Superbowl
And to answer the OP... while I would like to see one or two really dominant teams (remember how fun it was in 2007 seeing if someone would rise up and knock off the Pats?), I am pleased with the current product.
It's great that a team that didn't make the playoffs one year can turn it around and win the Super Bowl the next. -
this is the same discussion that occurred in the mid-to-late 1980s when the Steelers, Raiders, and Cowboys dynasties of the 70s had succumbed to NFL parity... the standard statement 25 years ago was "The NFL draft process works" (for creating parity)....
Fast forward and those same teams were expanding their dynasties again in later decades... well, at least 2 of the 3 teams were.
Roger Goodell hasn't changed anything that hasn't been occurring in the NFL for a very long time. The salary cap inclusion in the NFL labor agreement in 1994 potentially increases the parity, but that is also something that is commensurate with free agency that didn't exist 25 years ago. -
It's aaaaaaaaight... then again, Steelers, Colts and Pats were pretty much always in the playoffs last decade and won 6/10 superbowls.
Edited By: AMARTIN1181 Nov 15th, 2010 at 05:15 AM -
It's not like we are completely reshuffling the deck...Just more competitive at the top of the pack, which I enjoy
Think of likely AFC playoff teams...Steelers, Ravens, Pats, Colts...possibly even SD...It's been this way for better part of the last decade. Nice to see teams break through but none have had the staying power. -
Every AFC Champion since 2002 has been either the Patriots, Steelers, or Colts.
Prob won't change this year. -
This is a good point. While Goodell hasn't necessarily changed any rules, he's been a proponent of parity. Which is just fine with me. So why is it happening? Deeper drafts and a better talent pool? Young players having a bigger impact? Interesting question imo.
Originally Posted by resilient
Roger Goodell hasn't changed anything that hasn't been occurring in the NFL for a very long time. The salary cap inclusion in the NFL labor agreement in 1994 potentially increases the parity, but that is also something that is commensurate with free agency that didn't exist 25 years ago.
-
spot on i think. now in the NFL once you get to 29 years old its pretty much bye bye. most players have about a 5-6 year window to be great and once its up then they dont want you.
Originally Posted by krs33
This is a good point. While Goodell hasn't necessarily changed any rules, he's been a proponent of parity. Which is just fine with me. So why is it happening? Deeper drafts and a better talent pool? Young players having a bigger impact? Interesting question imo.
as long as you got a QB, good coach, a good GM and owner will be able to fillin the rest of the pieces for you each year and they are all replaceable. only QB needs to be consistent.
why i think NFL could have no salary cap and i dont think it changes a thing. A.) once teams find their QB they dont let them go. B.) Free agents are over priced and can be overrated and you can find better in the draft. the redskins and cowboys just sign FAs every year and it doesnt get them anywhere.










