NoCalMike Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I found it funny that all talk of parity in the NFL ends as soon as the playoffs start. I am not sure if the league does not want the commentators talking about it, or if there is a "well too late the playoffs have started" aspect to it, but all year we heard about parity this and parity that, yet no matter who makes it into the playoffs, they are never accused of getting lucky or how they only got in because how bad the NFL was this year.......thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well, I think the league is a LOT better right now. I think people underestimate how good (bad) these teams are. 1999 and 2000 were clearly "down" years for the league. The veteran stars were getting too old and there weren't many youngsters stepping up at that point. You saw a really "wild" league with things being completely unpredictable and some so-so teams doing big things. But this year, things went more or less as planned, IMO. I picked the Eagles to win the East, the 49ers to win the West, the Bucs to win the South, and I called the Falcons a "team to watch." In the AFC, things were a little more unprecitable, but I did pick the Titans and Steelers to win their divisions, and the Raiders certainly aren't a big surprise. The only real big surprises this year have been the Jets and Giants-- and neither of those two teams has been a incredible surprise. Now, you have guys like McNabb, Vick, Pennington, Garcia, Owens, etc.... You have that incredibly good WR corps of the Steelers, etc... These teams are better than the teams at the top just two years ago. Take a look at the 1991 season-- look at the teams we beat in the playoffs. This year's Falcons are MUCH better than the 1991 team and any remaining team is better than the 1991 Lions. In the AFC, the 1991 Bills were probably better than any of these teams, but the team they beat in the Title game (Denver) wasn't any better than most of the remaining teams right now. This Eagles team is better than ANY of those Eagles team in the 80's-early 90's and I think they could have competed quite well in the 80's NFC East. They probably would have had the best QB, which as well all know, goes a long way. I think the speedy, up-temp offenses of today would really give our championship defenses a hard time. We didn't see too many Marshall Faulk's back in the 80's-- the RB/WR hybrids, etc.... I think things settled down this year, and I think that trend will continue for awhile. Free agency changes the game, but honestly, the best players rarely, if ever, change uniforms. Very rarely does a team lose a guy it really wants to keep. Some teams go for broke and knowingly pay the price (Ravens), but teams are getting smarter and I don't think you will see that quite as often. Obviously, with four more teams and the salary cap, things are going to be a little less settled than the league in which many of us grew up. But unless you were a fan of the Redskins, Giants, Bears, or 49ers, I doubt the 80's were too fun. And don't forget this........the games are FUN. The games this year were exciting, and it wasn't just like it was a bunch of crappy teams playing close games-- I don't like a Giants-Ravens Super Bowl. That was bad and I hope it doesn't happen again. But I like what we've got right now. I see two really worthy NFC teams (Eagles, Bucs) one semi-worthy team (49ers) and one highly interesting team (Falcons) still alive. If any combo of the top two seeds in each conference makes the Super Bowl, I think we'll have a very good match-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Any team of 2003 could ve competed against teams of the 80's better conditioning and health thru chemicals, however saying all things are even the Hogs on offense and the skins D line with butz and company would ve kept the iggles in 2nd place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljer Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I hate parity. I miss the old days of dominating teams. When a team pulled off an upset it really meant something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Parity has it's Pros and Cons, like most anything else. No dynasties any more, but then again every team can, with the right moves, turn itself around quickly and be a contender, Bengals and Cardinals excepted, of course. I don't think of teams that make it to the playoffs as "lucky." at some point over the course of the season you have to win enough games to get in there. It's as simple as that. Teams that win enough get in ... those that don't, don't. Re-alignment has added an intersting twist by eliminating a Wild-card spot. I like that because I think it will put a premium on winning your division. As we saw this year, there will be many teams vying for those last two playoff spots and some good teams might not get in. That's cool with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins57 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I agree with Brave, that I really like the fact you almost have to win your division to get in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.