Is Parity dead in the NFL? Patriots still in an elite club
by MaPatsFan on Oct 29, 2009 6:40 PM EDT
in News
22 comments
It's funny. Sometimes stories and ideas are abundant. During the season, there's no lack for things to write about. Game wrapups, upcoming matchups, Q&A's with other bloggers. It's a wealth of information right at the fingertips. The long drought that is the off-season is a pain in the butt from a writer's perspective. So isn't a bye week. I'm not complaining, mind you, it gives one a little bit of a break.
As I said above, sometimes ideas are abundant and flow easily. Other times, they're sitting in the back of my mind, waiting for something to push them forward. So is the case with my thoughts on the NFL's parity issues. I've been thinking about this for a few weeks, specifically after 2 Patriot blowouts in a row. Outside of the boys from Foxborough, we have 3 undefeated teams (Colts, Broncos, Saints) and 3 winless teams (Titans, Buccaneers, Rams). Weird.
This idea of parity was pushed forward, as it often is, by our very own Marima's daily links, specifically a story by SI.com's Kerry J. Byrne. I found this to be an excellent piece of writing that asked as many questions as it answered. At the very least, Kerry provided some interesting facts and a few alarming (but good for us) statements:
The fact of the matter in today's NFL is that four teams -- all in the AFC -- have held an iron grip over the NFL for more than a decade. Denver, Indy, New England and Pittsburgh can be counted on year after year -- with the occasional exception here and there -- to stand among the very best teams in the league.
Those four have won 11 of the past 14 AFC titles. They've won six of the past eight Super Bowls and eight of the past 12. Over the past 15 years, the AFC's Big Four have filled 19 of 30 spots in the AFC title game.
0 recs |
22 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
The more I've been thinking about it, the more I wonder
whether the salary-sharing arrangement of the NFL is in large part to blame. There’s an incentive to cut costs on coaching, management and players, and still make a profit off the back of the successful franchises. Take the Bucs, for instance. They’re spending the bare minimum on player salaries, have a young rookie (and probably cheap) head coach, etc etc. They put out an awful product because of it – they’re painful to watch. Yet, because of the profit sharing deal, they get a significant amount of the NFL’s tv moneys fed to them, irrespective of their performance. If they were getting paid solely on their performance (and let’s face it, fans like winners. They’ll buy jerseys of 12-4 teams, not 4-12 teams). But it’s not.
The profit-sharing arrangement means owners can get away with putting out inferior product – bad teams. If it were removed, owners would suddenly have a financial incentive to actually invest properly – getting good managers, coaches, staff, teams, medical facilities, physios, everything – and getting the best players, keeping them fit and healthy and happy, and putting everything together to put out the best possible product on tv on Sunday and Monday. When their performance on the field is the main indicator of how profitable a franchise will be, you might actually see owners treating their teams like a proper business.
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 29, 2009 7:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The NFL desperately wants parity
They’d prefer every game be a fight to the finish decided in the last seconds of the 4th quarter. Viewers stay glued to their seats, the televisions stay on and the gazillions of commercials reach the maximum intended audience. Everyone’s happy.
What happens with blowouts? The product – an entertaining game – is compromised, channels switch, interest is lost, viewership is reduced, no one is watching the commercials or the broadcasting station, and aside from the fans of the team doing the blowing-out, no one’s happy.
The league already employs a socialistic approach to keep teams as even as possible. The salary cap, draft order, tougher scheduling for top teams, the order in which a team can claim a player off waivers…etc… The only thing the league can’t legislate, as Kerry Byrne points out, is organizational smarts. Delusional owner? Dysfunctional management? Powerless head coach? Executive in-fighting? Clueless, random drafting year after year? That’s where the real problem lies and there’s no rule the NFL can institute to fix it.
Keep the faith!
by Marima on Oct 29, 2009 7:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ever get the feeling...
that the average 10 year old who has played Madden’s franchise mode knows more about running a successful NFL organisation than some current NFL owners?
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 29, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep sure do at times
on the topic of parity many have mentioned the idea of another realignment of the divisions as a way to help that situation. personaly i think it would have the minimum effect as it was done in 2002 and look where we are. however with the proposition of a team moving to LA there is a possibility that if that team isn’t already in california there would be a realignment which could help make some of the weaker divisions more competitive.
question on the article im curious you hold the lead for most consecutive games one regular season (21) and post season (10) but how does that equal a combined (21) is it just a mistake in wording like i think it probably is?
GO COLTS!!! 09 IS OURS!!!
by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 29, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The regular season record
was spread over two or three seasons – off the top of my head I think it started in 2006, contained the whole 2007 season, and the first couple of games of 2008.
The postseason record was mainly due to the consecutive Superbowl seasons.
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 29, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
i was trying to figure out as it sounded like he was trying to include the 10 in the 21 but ok that makes more sense now
GO COLTS!!! 09 IS OURS!!!
by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 29, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Political science?
I bring that up because a lot of political science is the study of institutions — how they develop, how they come about, and how they work. In professional sports you get a certain type of institution — a franchise. If the institution itself is well bounded and is sound, it will remain that way no matter who’s working for it. The converse is true as well.
Still, there’s a great pressure to have this parity. How do you keep the good franchises from becoming more institutionalized and stronger in their ideals, and the bad franchises from spiraling down? I certainly don’t have the answer, but I think there’s such emphasis on “rebuilding” these days - seems like EVERYONE is rebuilding — that you get a lot of works in progress, or put bluntly, disasters. Are these getting better, or is it just that they aren’t good and aren’t going anywhere?
Carlos Gonzalez is a sexy man
by Squeaky on Oct 29, 2009 7:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I find it no coincidence
that one of the first trades the Kraft regime pulled out was a first-round pick for Bill Belichick. Probably the best first-round selection of all time – truly a greater impact than any first-round QB, HB or MLB could’ve done. It all starts at the top, and it was a combination of a brilliant owner choice and the faith in what turned out to be one of the best coaches in football.
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 29, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
salaries are a issure in the parity potentially
think of it this way and mabye it doesn’t make sense but i was thinking obout this. the draft and rookie salaries are key. if we have a restriction on the top draft picks as people talk about that means each draft pick will get a little less. in return that would provide more for the veterans. this would allow some of the bad teams to be able to sign those top draft picks that they are stuck with signing such as the 1st and still possibly go out and get some one on free agency. by doing this i think it would at least bring the level of play for those bottom half teams up i think evening out the parity a little bit
GO COLTS!!! 09 IS OURS!!!
by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 29, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why Belichick regularly trades down or out of the first round altogether
they don’t have to draft highly expensive first-round picks, especially when they aren’t good enough to justify the salaries. Belichick and the Pats have lately tried their best to avoid the salaries and trade down to get value players that fit the system, not highly priced first rounders that aren’t guaranteed of success at NFL level.
It’s a calculated risk to draft in the first-round, and sometimes it’s best not to. Most franchises haven’t seemed to grasp that, however.
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 29, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as true as that is
some one has to do it and many times if you are in the top 5 you can not trade out of it cause no one wants to be that high up so they get stuck with it. but teams like the colts and pats are always near the bottom of the first round anyway. i do think though that salary restrictions similar to the NBA’s would be good.
GO COLTS!!! 09 IS OURS!!!
by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 29, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're bad enough to earn a top 5 pick
Whoever you draft is probably an improvement on the team you’ve got now. So even if you have to spend on whoever you draft, there’s a pretty good chance that the guy you get will help your franchise immediately.
What is really important to remember, though, isn’t where people are drafted in the first round. If anything, it’s the lower rounds that matter. The really successful teams lately – Colts, Pats, Steelers, Giants, Broncos – have got value guys in the lower rounds. Top pass-rusher at the moment? A fourth-round pick guy in the Broncos. Most receptions? An undrafted guy in the Pats. Building the depth and getting great bit-part players in the lower rounds is every bit as important as getting studs in the top rounds.
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 29, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true there are many componants and i see your point
as far as the top 5 yes it is probably a improvement unless it is a (ryan leaf or jimarcus russell) lol. convenient or not those were both QB’s which is always a risk with high picks and only about 40 percent live up to there top draft pick value. anyway most do make a imediate impact.
true it isn’t where it is the vlue of the player and when you get down to that it becomes in large the ability of the managment to make good choices and have a good eye for those good players like the pats and colts and broncos and other so and which is one think that you do not find with teams like the 49ers and radiers. however for once they may have made a good pick this time in crabtree but time will tell
GO COLTS!!! 09 IS OURS!!!
by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 29, 2009 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There were huge warning signs on Leaf and Russell
They should never have been picked #1 because of personality issues.
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Oct 30, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for example in the last ten years (98-08) only 16 of the 20 top 2 picks are still
in the NFL. only 9 have made a pro bowl. yes i know probowl doesn’t mean every thing but in this case i find it useful in who has helped there teams in a big way and produced in the NFL or failed. in the past ten years though did you know that while the pats have had 13 first round picks colts had 9 and for an idea the raiders have had 14 and rams 13 as they had 3 in one draft.
ok lost train of thought on this one but here are some numbers anyway i guess it is showing that it hasn’t really mattered how good a team each is still pretty even on first rond picks the diffrence is probably in the place in the first round which i can say on average for each of these teams while picking the same amount are pats: 20(very good as some of it is picks gathered from trades) colts: 21 raiders and rams: 16
so after doing this i found it didn’t have as much to do with what we were talking about because of the way i did it but i did this work do here it is lol. just a hitory of where two of the top teams are in relation to two bottom teams when it comes to the draft the last ten years.
GO COLTS!!! 09 IS OURS!!!
by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 29, 2009 8:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Really a trend?
I would like to see this develope over a couple more years, before I definitely declared parity dead. Last year it seemed to work just fine with Dolphins and Falcons back in the top, and the blow-out numbers could go down when bad weather and general fatigue sets in.
Still, I think there are a couple of problems making it harder for bad teams to catch up and increasing the risk of becoming really bad.
1) the sharp rising in the cap over the last 3-4 seasons. When was the last time a top franchise really had to let players go because of cap hell? As I see it, over the last couple of years NOONE has hit free agency due to economic concers. Teams have chosen to get younger or they have feuded with one of the top players, but they have not been forced to cut top players due to cap problems. That means fewer top tier veterans to help turn a struggling franchise around.
2) The rookie salaries for the top ten has really spun out of control. I don’t have a problem with unproven players getting top dollars even though they haven’t done much yet – after all, you pay for expections not past production – but making Jake Long the highest paid lineman og Matthew Stafford the highest paid quarterback is too much.
IF everything pans out, it doesn’t matter. Matt Ryan is getting his pay delivered in truckloads, but he is good enough to warrant it. However, some teams will screw up their picks and being forced to pay and thus to play a draft bust can hold them back for years and lead to a vicious cycle of new top-five picks preventing them from paying for quality depth. A rookie salary cap with shorter contracts and automatic “franchising” after two years might solve some of the problems.
3) Shorter patience with mediocre results. Everyone seems to agree, that Dick Jauron has to make the playoffs this year, or he will get canned. Now, I don’t think he is a good coach, but his 21-27 record after three injury-plagued years isn’t terrible, and I suspect he would have been around longer ten or twenty years ago. Now, the loss of paitence with mediocrity means a huge turnover at headcoach, and while some of these mediocre teams become better, some of them get terrible, because not every housecleaning can succeed.
But after all, a lot of teams have to be mediocre, if parity is supposed to mean anything. Parity is not defined by the Patriots or the Lions, but by teams like the Jaguars, the Vikings, the Texans and the Panthers. Teams who on any given sunday, year in and year out, could beat the Patriots or lose to the Lions and still end up 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7.
by hythlodaeus on Oct 30, 2009 4:06 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Plus, it's teams with the strong quarterbacks who do better
If your draft bust was the quarterback, a la JaMarcus Russell, the team loses big time. The big money paid out puts pressure on him to play, but his play handicaps the entire team and it leaves the team without a leader. So a mistake at that position is putting your team in a hole that’s twice as deep as with any other.
I’m not a fan of the huge rookie salaries as they exist now. It goes against everything to be paid purely on expectation without any NFL experience whatsoever. It’s a slap to the veterans.
Keep the faith!
by Marima on Oct 30, 2009 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody likes top rookie salaries
Yep, the top-five qb-pick is obviously the biggest gamble of all, but teams will keep doing because the prize is also the biggest of all. Just look at P. Manning and the Colts.
My point about expectations was, that veterans are also paid on expectations, when they sign a new contract. When the Patriots extend Vilfork shortly (hopefully) he well not be paid for what he has done, but for what he is expected to do over the next 5-6 years. However, the risk / reward ratio is different, because with a veteran you know what you get: the ceiling is lower, the floor is higher and the career years left are fewer.
Making a rookie the best-paid at his position is ridiculous, but I find it natural that a Sanchez or a Raji is paid significantly more than the veteran minimum, because they offer more potential value than that – even if they haven’t done anything in the NFL yet.
by hythlodaeus on Oct 30, 2009 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe QBs could be put on a different rookie salary scale
Is there any other position that would have the cameras trained on a player discretely trying to eat something on the sideline? With that much focus, and that much pressure to perform at an NFL level immediately, those rookie QBs aren’t getting all that money for nothing. It’s just a bit over the top.
And I agree with you about veterans being paid on expectations (at least they have a body of work to look at and some level of comfort for coaches to feel that it will continue.) It’s a tough line of work, no question.
Keep the faith!
by Marima on Oct 30, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I 100% agree...
…it’s horrible to see so many teams unable to be successful year in and year out. I think what has happened, is that the Patriots/Steelers/Colts/etc success comes from being an established team and grooming young talent behind the veterans so, when they’re called on, they’re ready. The important thing is that the players drafted are surrounded by successful players with experience.
What we’re seeing with these other teams, is that they’re trying to wipe their slate clean and follow the Winner’s way. Unfortunately, that usually involves getting rid of your coaches (no continuity), getting younger (losing experience) and getting rid of leadership. However, once this happens, the young players are surrounded by other young players who don’t know what it takes to win and, as a result, can’t win. These players are destined to continue to fail and, because of the amount these teams have to pay their players, these teams are going to be stuck with these players. With this team losing, the coaches will lose their job and the cycle continues.
And while all this is going on, the Pats, the Colts, the Steelers and (although there was a coaching change), the Broncos continue to play the draft, surround their veterans with young talent and groom the future.
by The Hill on Oct 30, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some teams just need...
…2 drafts to become contenders again.
Teams should keep their players and keep their coaches (if they’re relatively new). If they want to be successful, they should draft trench players (o- and d-linemen in the first round because they’re usually the most assured bet. Draft them still in the 2nd. In the 3rd, perhaps switch to LB or some other finesse positions, but for the love of all that is good in Football, don’t draft a QB unless he’s going to come into a solid situation. Know what Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez all had in common? Good surroundings. Know what all the busts have had? Nothing. And that’s why they’ve failed.
If you’re rebuilding, you should use a veteran QB who can handle the job. Have a QB behind him that can learn the system and be groomed. Look at Chad Henne. Not starting him immediately and having him sit behind Pennington is probably one of the best things that could have happened for him. Matt Cassel. Kevin Kolb. Aaron Rodgers. Alex Smith even, although it might be too early to pronounce his return. Give them a few years to adjust and don’t throw them into the fire. Give them a line to stand behind first, give them players to help them and then they have a better chance of succeeding.
by The Hill on Oct 30, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or a coach/effective management
Parcells to the Dolphins, etc.
by Comedic.Sans on Oct 30, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Media requests: Please email patspulpit@gmail.com
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
