6 signs parity is dead in NFL

[/dev/null]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...rity/index.html

[muggins]

How in the hell can you say parity is dead when the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year and almost beat the Steelers, the Titans went 14-2 with Kerry Collins at the helm (and now winless this year), the Dolphins went from 1-15 to 10-5 (and now back to losing).

 

Denver is winning with Kyle Orton and a first year head coach in a season when everyone said they'd lose and SD would run away with the division. Cincinnati is doing awesome despite all their setbacks.

[zazie]

How in the hell can you say parity is dead when the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year and almost beat the Steelers, the Titans went 14-2 with Kerry Collins at the helm (and now winless this year), the Dolphins went from 1-15 to 10-5 (and now back to losing).

 

Denver is winning with Kyle Orton and a first year head coach in a season when everyone said they'd lose and SD would run away with the division. Cincinnati is doing awesome despite all their setbacks.

The Bills have won 3 games. If that is not evidence of parity I don't know what is

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

How in the hell can you say parity is dead when the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year and almost beat the Steelers, the Titans went 14-2 [Correction 13-3] with Kerry Collins at the helm (and now winless this year), the Dolphins went from 1-15 to 10-5 [Correction 11-5] (and now back to losing).

 

Denver is winning with Kyle Orton and a first year head coach in a season when everyone said they'd lose and SD would run away with the division. Cincinnati is doing awesome despite all their setbacks.

 

Boo and YA!

[mabden]

Quote from the article:

 

"Here's one guess why: the NFL, with so many players and so many coaches and so much turnover and so many moving parts, is all about management. And, right now, management has never been more important.

 

Humans are not equal in talent, whether they're in the front office, on the sidelines or in the huddle, and the notion that a few rules will "level the playing field" is being mocked openly on the field right now.

 

What the NFL has done, actually, is create a system that ends up rewarding well managed teams and punishing poorly managed teams. The Colts, Patriots and Steelers continue to fine tune the system year after the year and win year after year. The Browns, Lions and teams like (in recent years) the Redskins make poor and sometimes desperate off-the-field decisions that make them uncompetitive on the field.

 

Back in the day, before the efforts to "level the playing field," a poorly managed team could splurge for a season or two on talent and compete. Money is the great equalizer. But that weapon has been removed and now, more than ever, not less than ever, NFL teams are dependent upon smart decision-makers and good executives. The NFL has maximized, not minimized, inequality on the playing field by maximizing the importance of management."

 

This sums up Buffalo's predicament, mediocre to poor management begets mediocre to poor teams. Although, my believe is the team plays as well as it can inspite of the management, as aposed to a team like Washington, were the players are only playing for themselves.

 

 

Bill Polien, please come back to Buffalo!

[BillsVet]

How in the hell can you say parity is dead when the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year and almost beat the Steelers, the Titans went 14-2 with Kerry Collins at the helm (and now winless this year), the Dolphins went from 1-15 to 10-5 (and now back to losing).

 

Denver is winning with Kyle Orton and a first year head coach in a season when everyone said they'd lose and SD would run away with the division. Cincinnati is doing awesome despite all their setbacks.

 

Because the same teams are typically good every year, with few exceptions. NE, PIT, BAL, IND, DEN, SD, NYG, PHI, and GB are able to sustain success. The others haven't done it.

 

All of those teams are well managed, and this is the difference between good, mediocre, and plain bad teams. It's why the Bills are stuck in a decade long rut of ineptitude.

[LongLiveRalph]

Because the same teams are typically good every year, with few exceptions. NE, PIT, BAL, IND, DEN, SD, NYG, PHI, and GB are able to sustain success. The others haven't done it.

 

All of those teams are well managed, and this is the difference between good, mediocre, and plain bad teams. It's why the Bills are stuck in a decade long rut of ineptitude.

 

And it seems that when those teams have a down year, it's 6-10 for one season and then back up into playoffs or playoff contention the next year. While they don't always have their mojo working every season, they also don't get bogged down into a decade of mediocrity in Pittsburgh, Philly, GB, etc.

 

Sigh....

[Mr. WEO]

Because the same teams are typically good every year, with few exceptions. NE, PIT, BAL, IND, DEN, SD, NYG, PHI, and GB are able to sustain success. The others haven't done it.

 

All of those teams are well managed, and this is the difference between good, mediocre, and plain bad teams. It's why the Bills are stuck in a decade long rut of ineptitude.

This is a silly article.

 

Look at the standings last year and this. Teams are allover the place compared to where they were last year.

 

So his grand coclusion is that the League "rewards" teams that are well managed. No it doesn't--good management rewards itself! What a bonehead.

 

Money alone doesn't solve everything (Snyder is essentially doing what this guy says they did back in the good ol days).

 

The article restates the obvious but this guy obviously isn't aware of it.

[Coach55]

Quote from the article:

 

"Here's one guess why: the NFL, with so many players and so many coaches and so much turnover and so many moving parts, is all about management. And, right now, management has never been more important.

 

Humans are not equal in talent, whether they're in the front office, on the sidelines or in the huddle, and the notion that a few rules will "level the playing field" is being mocked openly on the field right now.

 

What the NFL has done, actually, is create a system that ends up rewarding well managed teams and punishing poorly managed teams. The Colts, Patriots and Steelers continue to fine tune the system year after the year and win year after year. The Browns, Lions and teams like (in recent years) the Redskins make poor and sometimes desperate off-the-field decisions that make them uncompetitive on the field.

 

Back in the day, before the efforts to "level the playing field," a poorly managed team could splurge for a season or two on talent and compete. Money is the great equalizer. But that weapon has been removed and now, more than ever, not less than ever, NFL teams are dependent upon smart decision-makers and good executives. The NFL has maximized, not minimized, inequality on the playing field by maximizing the importance of management."

 

This sums up Buffalo's predicament, mediocre to poor management begets mediocre to poor teams. Although, my believe is the team plays as well as it can inspite of the management, as aposed to a team like Washington, were the players are only playing for themselves.

 

 

Bill Polien, please come back to Buffalo!

 

What you say about management couldn't be more true, but also is the reason why parity will always exist in the NFL. Any team in any year can win a championship. Teams with good management continue to win. However, if things don't work you can fire everyone and start over. You can almost liken the NFL to NASCAR (I hate to use this reference because I hate NASCAR), but in NASCAR everyone has the same basic car and its the driver and the pit crew who make it win. In the NFL, due to the salary cap, the teams are leveled, and the management becomes the driver.

 

Interesting side thought - the salary cap actually favors small market teams as $75mm goes a lot further in Buffalo than New York City. A player making $400K in Buffalo lives like a king and can have a big house in Orchard Park. A player making $400K in NYC is renting a 2 bedroom apartment and is just another middle class guy.

[Coach55]

Follow on to my side thought...

 

An NFL Player could get this house in Orchard Park for about $3000/mo (assuming minimal downpayment, and $6K in taxes)

 

http://realestate.yahoo.com/New_York/Orcha...d952058c6c968e5

 

Or they could rent this 1 bedroom apartment in New York City for the same price

 

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.a...6673&ohDat=

[reddogblitz]

I have an alternative conclusion. Once a team gets it going someway somehow, then the talent comes to them. Free agency allows good players to move from team to team. When contract time comes up, if the money is even or close, a player is going to go to a good team as opposed to a bad one. If you're Randy Moss and you have 2 offers, one from the Bill and one from a good team, what do you choose? I blame it on Free Agency.

[Mr. WEO]

I have an alternative conclusion. Once a team gets it going someway somehow, then the talent comes to them. Free agency allows good players to move from team to team. When contract time comes up, if the money is even or close, a player is going to go to a good team as opposed to a bad one. If you're Randy Moss and you have 2 offers, one from the Bill and one from a good team, what do you choose? I blame it on Free Agency.

BB watches FAs walk away from his team all the time. Doesn't seem to bother him or affect his team much.

 

 

Follow on to my side thought...

 

An NFL Player could get this house in Orchard Park for about $3000/mo (assuming minimal downpayment, and $6K in taxes)

 

http://realestate.yahoo.com/New_York/Orcha...d952058c6c968e5

 

Or they could rent this 1 bedroom apartment in New York City for the same price

 

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.a...6673&ohDat=

Unless they are from there, why would an active NFL player buy a house in Buff? Odds are that they will not finish their career there (if they stay healthy) and they will never get back what they blew on that shack that you showed. Renting is the only smart move.

 

And it's pointless to compare Buffalo to NYC.

[Coach55]

BB watches FAs walk away from his team all the time. Doesn't seem to bother him or affect his team much.

 

 

 

Unless they are from there, why would an active NFL player buy a house in Buff? Odds are that they will not finish their career there (if they stay healthy) and they will never get back what they blew on that shack that you showed. Renting is the only smart move.

 

And it's pointless to compare Buffalo to NYC.

I agree that you should compare a rental vs. a rental, but it is fair to make the comparison. As much as many NFL players like the limelight and the glitz and glamour of playing in a big city, small cities have a big selling point. A city like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Indianapolis, etc can really sell the cost of living aspect to the role players (sub <$1mm), meaning you can get either better players with the same money or the same quality of player for lesser money, leaving more funds for high-profile superstars. A properly run team in a small city has a distinct advantage over cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco and even Boston*. Buffalo's problem is they are not properly run to take advantage of this pricing anomaly.

[Fewell733]

good management is incredibly important, but the teams that have been dominant over the past 10 years happened to have struck gold at the quarterback position. Was it superior management that found Brady or Manning? Not really.

 

The league has shifted into a pass first league which favors teams with the best quarterbacks. Of course you need competent management to protect the QBs and have a decent enough defense - but never before has the passing game been so rewarded and protected. It makes it increasingly tough for teams without top quarterbacks to even remain competitive even when they are a well managed, hardnosed/ run-first team that play great defense.

[Mr. WEO]

I agree that you should compare a rental vs. a rental, but it is fair to make the comparison. As much as many NFL players like the limelight and the glitz and glamour of playing in a big city, small cities have a big selling point. A city like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Indianapolis, etc can really sell the cost of living aspect to the role players (sub <$1mm), meaning you can get either better players with the same money or the same quality of player for lesser money, leaving more funds for high-profile superstars. A properly run team in a small city has a distinct advantage over cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco and even Boston*. Buffalo's problem is they are not properly run to take advantage of this pricing anomaly.

 

 

You still can't compare them. Young guys, role players or not, are not going to be content thinking about all the money they are NOT spending having fun in a small town. Plus, the property taxes on that McHouse are likely equal to 4-5 month's rent on the pad in the City. So, for a guy who's a role player, he may pay a few hundred less per month on the house (plus his down payment) than a rental. But when he is cut, he's going to take a bath if he ever sells that house.

 

He would be much better off to rent a place for $1200 in Buff and buy a home in (and be a resident of) Florida, where there is no personal income taxe.

 

 

good management is incredibly important, but the teams that have been dominant over the past 10 years happened to have struck gold at the quarterback position. Was it superior management that found Brady or Manning? Not really.

 

The league has shifted into a pass first league which favors teams with the best quarterbacks. Of course you need competent management to protect the QBs and have a decent enough defense - but never before has the passing game been so rewarded and protected. It makes it increasingly tough for teams without top quarterbacks to even remain competitive even when they are a well managed, hardnosed/ run-first team that play great defense.

 

Yeah, the Colts really went out on a limb picking some out-of-nowhere kid named Manning number 1 in the draft......

 

As for Brady, he likely would have passed through the league like so many other late round backups, without proper coaching.

[LongLiveRalph]

good management is incredibly important, but the teams that have been dominant over the past 10 years happened to have struck gold at the quarterback position. Was it superior management that found Brady or Manning? Not really.

 

The league has shifted into a pass first league which favors teams with the best quarterbacks. Of course you need competent management to protect the QBs and have a decent enough defense - but never before has the passing game been so rewarded and protected. It makes it increasingly tough for teams without top quarterbacks to even remain competitive even when they are a well managed, hardnosed/ run-first team that play great defense.

 

I've always loved the media fawning over the Pats for their selection of Brady, like it was some sort of genius move and they knew how special he could be. Granted, props to them for drafting him, as every other team had its shot, but if this great organization knew they had a diamond in the rough, they don't wait for the 199th pick to select him.

 

If you think about what Brady has done, and the people he's impacted, it's incredible. Belichick was a sub-.500 head coach, now he's probably top-5 all time. Think of how much money he's made Robert Kraft, Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennell, Eric Mangini, Deion Branch, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Josh McDaniels, Scott Pioli, and on and on...All of those guys have made BIG money leaving New England, and all of those opportunities presented themselves because of their Super Bowls. Without Brady, it's hard to imagine it all happening...It's pretty crazy...

 

It's hard to believe now but there were many split camps on the Manning/Leaf selections. Manning was probably considered safer, Leaf was more raw with maybe more potential. Have to give the Colts credit there, whether or not there was any internal waffling on the pick who knows, but they sure came away with the right one. You have to give them credit because screwing that up would've put them in NFL jokeland for 6 or 7 years like the Chargers, rather than the perennial contenders that they are.

[mabden]

This is a silly article.

 

Look at the standings last year and this. Teams are allover the place compared to where they were last year.

 

Year to year there is some variation, but overall the same teams tend to dominate.

 

So his grand coclusion is that the League "rewards" teams that are well managed. No it doesn't--good management rewards itself! What a bonehead.

 

He is talking about the structure of the league.

 

Money alone doesn't solve everything (Snyder is essentially doing what this guy says they did back in the good ol days).

That's the point! Revenue sharing and salary caps do not make teams even, how a team is managed makes all the difference. Because the owners are free to spend whatever for management, it is that management (HC, Scouting, GM ect) that builds the team with the given amount of cash. Buffalo is in the to 10 for salary cap, but look at the results.

 

The article restates the obvious but this guy obviously isn't aware of it.

[Orton's Arm]

One point which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned earlier is this: over the last several years, the salary cap has gone up considerably, while shared revenues have remained stagnant. In the past, a team like the Bills could afford to spend up to the salary cap and still make a profit. That's no longer the case.

 

Also, money spent on coaches and front office personnel doesn't count against the salary cap.

 

Together, these two factors make it hard for a team like the Bills to compete. If you're a first-rate GM, would you rather go to a team whose owner is willing and able to spend right up to the salary cap limit, or to a team whose low revenues impose a far lower ceiling on player spending than does the salary cap? Add in the fact that the lower revenue team is likely to pay less for front office types, and it's a no brainer for the first-rate front office guy to go to the higher revenue team.

 

If we want an increase in parity, there needs to be a reduction in the salary cap, in both relative (to league revenue) and absolute terms. While that reduction in the salary cap, alone, will not cause parity, it will reduce the severity of a key contributing cause of the current lack of parity.

[Giaimo25]

You can almost liken the NFL to NASCAR (I hate to use this reference because I hate NASCAR), but in NASCAR everyone has the same basic car and its the driver and the pit crew who make it win. In the NFL, due to the salary cap, the teams are leveled, and the management becomes the driver.

 

I can agree with this to a point, but to think that money has nothing to do with it would be absurd. Big nascar teams can afford all the expensive testing machines that smaller operations just cannot, such as a 7 post shake rig. yea the cars are basiclly the same, but again its the management doing the research that will put the driver in the position to win races.

[Sisyphean Bills]

good management is incredibly important, but the teams that have been dominant over the past 10 years happened to have struck gold at the quarterback position. Was it superior management that found Brady or Manning? Not really.

 

The league has shifted into a pass first league which favors teams with the best quarterbacks. Of course you need competent management to protect the QBs and have a decent enough defense - but never before has the passing game been so rewarded and protected. It makes it increasingly tough for teams without top quarterbacks to even remain competitive even when they are a well managed, hardnosed/ run-first team that play great defense.

To poke a bit of a hole in this, two of the teams mentioned were the Steelers and Broncos. The Broncos have not had a single great QB since Elway. They haven't won any Super Bowls since then, but they have only had 1 losing season this millenium and been a playoff fixture. Likewise the Steelers have been a power over the last decade had multiple QBs, had a 13 win season with Kordell Stewart at QB of all things and a playoff team with Tommy Maddox. The Giants have been a power in the NFL since 1984, with only 2 seasons in that entire span with less than 6 wins. That despite 5 head coaches and 7 different QBs.

 

Obviously, having a superstar at QB is a very good thing. It isn't the only thing though. Indeed, it is far more important to have superior management that acts proactively and makes good decisions about the talent at all levels of the team to maintain their success. After all, it is a process that requires great decision making. No team is immune to change.