Parity in the NFL, does it even exist anymore?

[Elias]

Saw this question posted on another board and thought it would be a nice discussion to have here. It's obviously the slow time of the year so not much Jets news to talk about, especially since everything is going well. Very odd that not even Womanish Mehta has said something negative about the Jets' new hires. Scary.

It's no secret that the Jets have a lot of work to do especially since they are weak in the most important position - QB. My question to you all is:

Is the league worst off now than it ever was in the past due to the dependence of the QB? We talk about how this league has the most parity, but it would appear, they are slowly taking that away based on the stance of officiating in favor of the QB. Parity only matters if you have a good QB.

In today's NFL if you do not have a QB that is in the top of the league or at least plays like he belongs in the top of the league when the post-season hits, you have no chance to succeed. No other team sport is so dependent on a single position like the NFL is. It nullifies the talents of the rest of the team. The most talented team in the league would not be able to carry a below average QB to the play-offs.

 

[sg3]

Without cheating since 2000, there would have been plenty of parity in the AFCEast

 

[ucrenegade]

no until goodell resigns this sport will continue to get worse.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Saw this question posted on another board and thought it would be a nice discussion to have here. It's obviously the slow time of the year so not much Jets news to talk about, especially since everything is going well. Very odd that not even Womanish Mehta has said something negative about the Jets' new hires. Scary.

It's no secret that the Jets have a lot of work to do especially since they are weak in the most important position - QB. My question to you all is:

Is the league worst off now than it ever was in the past due to the dependence of the QB?[/B] We talk about how this league has the most parity, but it would appear, they are slowly taking that away based on the stance of officiating in favor of the QB. Parity only matters if you have a good QB.

In today's NFL if you do not have a QB that is in the top of the league or at least plays like he belongs in the top of the league when the post-season hits, you have no chance to succeed. No other team sport is so dependent on a single position like the NFL is. It nullifies the talents of the rest of the team. The most talented team in the league would not be able to carry a below average QB to the play-offs.

So you think the '85 Bears would not succeed today because they only had McMahon, who wasn't a top QB even in his era?

 

[Elias]

So you think the '85 Bears would not succeed today because they only had McMahon, who wasn't a top QB even in his era?

Honestly, yes. It's a different era one that helps out the QBs. The Bears physical style of football would probably get flagged at least ten times a game. Their hits on the WR and QBs that made them lethal are illegal now. In addition, the 85 bears main formation was the 46 Defense because the running game was the more dominant style then. They would just have the two CBs and a Safety out there to cover the pass. That wouldn't work in today's NFL because you can't mug WRs anymore past five yards.

The Bears were amazing but they were built for their era, not for today's NFL.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Honestly, yes. It's a different era one that helps out the QBs. The Bears physical style of football would probably get flagged at least ten times a game. Their hits on the WR and QBs that made them lethal are illegal now. In addition, the 85 bears main formation was the 46 Defense because the running game was the more dominant style then. They would just have the two CBs and a Safety out there to cover the pass. That wouldn't work in today's NFL because you can't mug WRs anymore past five yards.

The Bears were amazing but they were built for their era, not for today's NFL.

You're probably right. But's fun to recall what that team did to the Pats, no?

Anyways, updating things a bit, what about the Ravens in, what was it, 2000(?), I can't recall who their QB was but I do seem to recall he wasn't a great one. Do you think the rules have changed enough between then and now that even that Raven team would not succeed today?

 

[Elias]

You're probably right. But's fun to recall what that team did to the Pats, no?

Anyways, updating things a bit, what about the Ravens in, what was it, 2000(?), I can't recall who their QB was but I do seem to recall he wasn't a great one. Do you think the rules have changed enough between then and now that even that Raven team would not succeed today?

Ravens QB was Trent Dilfer. Far from a good one. Their defense I think was the best since the 85 bears. Funny thing is that Kerry Collins was the QB for the Giants then - prob the worst QB match up at the SB ever.

Did the game change enough then? Yes, I think so. I think it wasn't until the Pats mauled Peyton and his receivers a few years later that the rules went in to favor the Offense/QB. Teams now have to be better balanced to win it. You need to have an above average offense if you are going to rely on the defense, similar to the Seahawks.

Having said that, the Ravens would be better equipped to handle today's offenses. I tried researching the Defensive rankings of the last few SB matchups but can't really find anything that can defend my point except for 2011. Both the Giants and the Pats were ranked near the bottom in total defense but still made the SB. Not sure if that could happen back in the day - pre-rule changes. My point may be all over the place but to sum up, I really do think it's harder for us to win unless we have a good QB. We got close with Sanchez two years but not sure we could have won the SB those years, NO was tough and so were the Cardinals.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Ravens QB was Trent Dilfer. Far from a good one. Their defense I think was the best since the 85 bears. Funny thing is that Kerry Collins was the QB for the Giants then - prob the worst QB match up at the SB ever.

Did the game change enough then? Yes, I think so. I think it wasn't until the Pats mauled Peyton and his receivers a few years later that the rules went in to favor the Offense/QB. Teams now have to be better balanced to win it. You need to have an above average offense if you are going to rely on the defense, similar to the Seahawks.

Having said that, the Ravens would be better equipped to handle today's offenses. I tried researching the Defensive rankings of the last few SB matchups but can't really find anything that can defend my point except for 2011. Both the Giants and the Pats were ranked near the bottom in total defense but still made the SB. Not sure if that could happen back in the day - pre-rule changes. My point may be all over the place but to sum up, I really do think it's harder for us to win unless we have a good QB. We got close with Sanchez two years but not sure we could have won the SB those years, NO was tough and so were the Cardinals.

Ah yes, Dilfer! Right, hardly in the Aaron Rodgers class of QB's!

But I am still hopeful it is possible with a serviceable QB to reach and win a SB, if you have a Ravens 2000- or Bears '85-like defense, plus an offense with players like those on Montana's SB teams, other than Montana, of course. But a lot depends on the luck of the draw. If the team you are playing against in the SB also has all that stuff plus a future HOF QB, obviously your goose is cooked.

 

[Xmarco]

Hell the MS Jets with a stop on Pittsburgh or not allowing the last minute score to Pats could've been on this list too

 

[Johnny Unite Us]

There will never be parity, but the teams at the top and the bottom will change periodically, based on story line and public opinion.

That's how the NFL wants it. The NFL has crossed the line between sports and entertainment. It is now firmly on the entertainment side of the ledger. It has become the WWE of professional sports, and Roger Goodell is Vince McMahon.

A sports league has rules and applies those equally across all competitors in the sport.

An entertainment business waits to see what consumers think the most popular outcome will be, and then makes sure that will happen.

Three weeks since the Patriots were last caught cheating, and still nothing from the league. LOL.

Wait for those Nielsen ratings, send out a few research firms, find out what the audience wants next, and provide it. Rules be damned.

We can always revise the rulebook, but we can't revise the ratings book.

So, who do you want next year, America? What will maximize ratings? Do you want the good guys to win, the bad guys, the new kids on the block, the "establishment", the pretty boys? Who do you want?

Because that's who you're going to get from now on.