Exhibits A & B: Only 2 teams, each, are projected to have points differentials either +100 or more or -100 or less (Bills & Eagles; Steelers and Panthers)-and that is with the 17 game schedule. Only 3 5-1 teams + the 6-0 Eagles. Nobody is winless.
I miss having truly dominant teams, clashes of titans (tho last week’s Buffalo/KC contest arguably qualifies), compelling matchups. I have noted the relatively low quality of play in a number of games this season (physical if not mental mistakes galore) with not a lot that seems truly spectacular.
Part of it, I think, is that the league is in a transition from what had been, to an extent, the status quo over the past decade or longer. The Patriots, now that Tom Brady is a Buc, are no longer a dynasty. And, Brady seems to be struggling, compared to his usual standards (his personal life seems to be a big part of the reason why).
The Packers, Saints, Seahawks, and Steelers had also been consistently good, and aren’t now; Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson are looking human, while Ben Roelthlisberger and Drew Brees are retired.
This hints at the real cause of today’s parity – a relative dearth of truly outstanding QBs. The evolution of the game and its rules makes it impossible for a team to sustain success without a top tier QB, and there may only be two in the entire league right now – Mahomes (KC) and Allen (Buffalo).
The last generation is either retired (Brees, Roethlisberger, Rivers) or fading (Brady, Rodgers, Wilson), and the next generation has some rising stars (Burrow, Herbert, Hurts, Tua, Lawrence) but none with dominant teams yet.
Once those new gen QBs get into that dominant phase, we’ll see less parity.
It’s still a league of haves and have nots. You have a star QB or you don’t. A team or two might find a different way to win in a season, but whatever that may be it’s still not sustainable without a viable QB. There are just more viable QBs now than there traditionally have been. Used to be there were only 4-5 of those guys at any given time, but now it’s up to maybe 10-12. Possible the highest tier QBs and the mid-high tiers merged. There’s a lot of young players at the position who have not fully broken through but clearly have star potential.
I don’t. Football is most fun when every game comes down to the wire. The occasional blow-out might be fun, if you’re a fan of the team that’s winning, but at some point, it becomes clear that the losing team has no chance, and so there’s no drama.
I mostly watch CFL football, and the last RedBlacks game was one of the best I’ve seen them play in a couple of years, even though they lost. But it came down to the last plays of the game, and there never was a point where you thought, “Well, that’s it, this team has locked up the win!” Anything could have happened.
But I’d rather see two titans down to the wire than 2 mediocrities. I want talent to will out and not fluky plays. When the result seem mostly random I start to lose interest.
It’s interesting to contrast college FB with the NFL, where in the former it’s always the same 6 teams in the playoff.
The Rams have made the playoffs 5 straight years, made it to the Super Bowl with Jared Goff, won it with Matthew Stafford. The Eagles have made the playoffs for 4 of the last 5 years with Carson Wentz and Nick Foles. The Ravens have made the playoffs 13 of the last 20 years, won 2 Super Bowls with Trent Dilfer and Joe Flacco.
Yes, having an elite QB is a huge help, but well run, good drafting, and well coached teams can sustain success, even win Super Bowls, without one.
You’ve basically pointed out all the exceptions that prove the rule – especially the Ravens. (You could also add the 49ers’ recent success with Garappolo.) But for the better part of this century, you could virtually write in the teams with elite QBs for 10+ wins and a playoff spot, and 19 of the Super Bowls played in years starting with 2 were won by QBs likely to be in the Hall of Fame.
Now I’d say there are only two teams who, by virtue of their QB, are locks for the playoffs – KC and Buffalo. (Preseason I would have added GB, but it’s no longer looking that way.) There are disparities between the talent level of other teams’ QBs, of course (a fact I know all too well as a Bears fan), but until those rising stars achieve elite level I think we’re going to see a lot more 9-8 teams and a lot fewer at 14-3 or 3-14.
A complete reading of that cite (however untrustworthy the source ) reveals that exceptions such as yours can add more validity to a rule such as mine. If elite QBs always won, there wouldn’t be much point in playing the games, but that doesn’t change the fact that they usually win.
I disagree with the OP. Parity is good, dominant teams (and hapless teams) are bad.
I am also unfazed by the elite quarterback issue. My Giants have won four Superbowls, two in this century, and none with a truly elite quarterback. Simms and Eli were both good, but not elite. Hostetler was average. I would say it’s more a matter of you need an elite quarterback or elite coaching. Having both would be great, but is not required. One or the other is sufficient.
Even if you assume Eli is making it to the hall, that still leaves Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles and Matthew Stafford as quarterbacks who have won the Superbowl in years starting with a 2. Which of those guys do you think are making the hall?
I do assume Eli makes it (2 Super Bowl MVPs overcome relatively mediocre numbers) along with Stafford (big career numbers plus a Super Bowl win). Mind you, I wouldn’t vote for either, but I suspect they’ll be elected. Wilson might be borderline, too.
it doesn’t really matter if you have a world-class QB if the o lines are letting him get run over almost every play or so …or if you don’t have a receiver that can catch let alone hold on to the ball…
I don’t think too much parity is bad - it’s great - but I will say I’ve found it suspicious how many Super Bowls have gone down to the wire lately. It’s like the refs are determined not to let one team lead by more than one score, heading into the final minutes.
Over the past few decades, only Seahawks-Broncos, Bucs-Raiders, Ravens-Giants and Bucs-Chiefs have really counted as blowouts. Every other time, when one team pulled ahead, there was for sure going to be a comeback, especially with some questionable officiating.
At some point teams are going to realize that even the best QB isn’t going to be enough if you’re paying 25% of your cap to one person. You can’t pay enough money for the rest of the team.
At the risk of sounding like John Madden (which I understand is not a massive offense but still generally to be avoided), dominance in the NFL requires the ability to do two things consistently: 1. get the lead and 2. keep the lead. For a lot of teams #1 is pretty easy; it’s #2 that’s the problem. How many “miraculous” comebacks, devastating collapses, and incredible turnarounds have you seen so far this season? The strange thing is, burning out the clock should be one of the simplest tasks in football. On offense, keep the ball on the ground, maybe mix in a dink pass or bootleg every so often to keep 'em honest, and grind out first downs; on defense, keep the receivers covered, don’t give up big gains, end plays in bounds as much as possible, and keep them out of the end zone. It seems so basic and yet becoming increasingly rare.
I think the main problem is that there are 32 teams, each of which requires a dedicated offensive unit, defensive unit, special teams unit, and backups for all three. There just are not that many quality players, and even the good ones frequently get taken down by injuries. That means that at any given time, nearly every squad has big holes somewhere. That opens the door to mistakes, loss of focus, loss of morale, a big momentum swing, and finally defeat-jaw-pull-victory. Or the game is just a chaotic toss-up, and no one’s every going to win or lose all of those.
Too much? Define “too much”. Personally, as long as the Bills keep winning, I’m cool. I don’t really care that much who takes the NFC.
You’ve just described exactly what has driven me bonkers about watching the Packers over the past couple of seasons. They jump out to a lead in the first half, and look great, and then let the other team claw their way back into the game in the second half.
Up until this year, they’ve usually been able to hold the other team off in the end, but it’s always felt like they’ve been playing with fire.
I enjoy watching dominant and hapless teams. I’d much rather have a team or two in the running for an undefeated or winless season going into December than having a bunch of near .500 teams. The discussion has focused on the best teams getting worse, but the bottom feeders have also gotten better. Gone are the days when the Lions, Texans, Browns, or Jaguars had a chance for going winless late in the year. Sometimes it’s fun to root against a team, and it’s a lot more fun when that team is 0-13 rather than 4-9.
) reveals that exceptions such as yours can add more validity to a rule such as mine. If elite QBs always won, there wouldn’t be much point in playing the games, but that doesn’t change the fact that they usually win.