In what way? They have an elite or at least top 6 quarterback and two stud playmakers that will keep them in deep Superbowl contention regardless of the rest of the team. I'd say the Steelers have a much better chance at making the playoffs and certainly a better chance at getting in the championship game than we do.
In what way? In the win column way. Jets could beat the Steelers flat out. Ben wouldn't do anything against our D, and the Steeler D is gutted and a shell of it's former self. Even a Geno Smith led offense would be able to put up 17-21 points, which would be enough to win.
This is interesting. My point was anybody can beat anybody. Which the Steelers and Jets being (3-3) lately supports. You are showing good teams are good, bad teams are bad in the end. So it really does work both ways, but parity brings optimism to 2015 is what I am trying to say.
All I'm saying on this is that parity is a joke. You can pick the bottom dwellers in any given year and then pick again a year or two later and you're picking the same teams. You can pick the best in any given year and the same applies a few years later. Parity is for the 20 teams that aren't good and that don't suck and only very rarely does one of those 20 franchises break through into the upper echelon. When they do they tend to stay there for quite a long time. The NFL should go back to bigger divisions and unbalanced schedules. The same relationships apply that applied back in those days only you don't get to see your favorite opponents as often. Or to put it more simply, 3 division rivals isn't enough. The Patriots would have had much more trouble dominating a 5 team division than the 4 team AFC East.
Great point. Especially if that 5th team was still Peyton Manning/Andrew Luck's Colts. Could have different results than we have had the last decade.
As is so often the case, the reality is somewhere in between the poles asserted here. There is some degree of parity if by that one means can any team have a good chance of beating any other team in a single regular season game, at least at the time of the season, when perhaps some key players are out, that they play them. But over the long haul, looking at several seasons in a row, we can all name teams that are just not in the running. Where it gets interesting is in seeing how much it takes to get out of that bottom rung despite getting better drafting positions in multiple off seasons. I am thinking here of a team like Oakland, which not long ago was a top team, and since then fell hard and has stayed down. But now they seem to have a good Qb in Carr, and perhaps have settled their coaching situation. Hm. Let's see how they do this year. It's an object lesson in parity and how much or little of it there is.
Yeah, I agree. The Raiders are a good example too. They look like they are back on track. Obviously the Packers and Browns are different teams. The Patriots and Jaguars, etc. If the Browns beat the Packers, no one would be shocked though. The shock would be the Browns finishing with a better record than the Packers. So I see what everyone is saying. Parity is there, but it also is not. However, that is why getting into the playoffs is so crucial. If everything goes the Jets way and they make it in the playoffs, like in 2009 or 2010, the odds are still stacked against them but you never know. A play here or a play there and the Jets are SB Champs. So it really is 50/50.
IMO you have some valid points, but it's easier for bottom dwelling teams to turn things around quickly than it is for the mediocre/average/good teams, due to draft position. Of course one has to have a good scouting dept. and GM to take advantage of that, and all too often poor teams don't, and that's why they're at the bottom of the league to begin with. Assuming, they fire their GM and he overhauls the scouting dept., things can turn around quickly. It looks like that's what's going to happen with the Jets under Mac and Bowles. Look at how quickly Parcells turned the Jets around, although with him, it was more a matter of GREATLY improved coaching and discipline and improving the team via FA rather than the draft. There have been other teams who have done that as well. Of course there are other factors involved as well, such as cap space and how wisely FA $s are spent, injured key players who being absent greatly contributed to their teams being awful for a year and then rebounding the next, teams replacing inept GMs and making good new hires, and probably some others that I'm not thinking of at the moment (not finished with my first cup of coffee yet!). One thing the league has done which has hurt parity (imo) is to stop having the poorer teams having easier schedules the next season. One of the things that keeps them stuck at the bottom is that sometimes they have among the toughest schedules. We have seen that with the Jets. It's like the NFL is kicking teams while they're down.
Close enough to beat them in a game, not close enough to win a superbowl. Really if you hit most of the best teams with a season ending injury for their QB week 1 they wouldn't be all that good.
Unless Derek Carr has an excellent season the Raiders are still going to be bottom half of the NFL and probably bottom third. Nothing he did last year suggests he's good enough to make that kind of impact. He spent the entire season dumping the ball off to his outlets. Even with short passes making up the vast majority of his throws he couldn't hit 60% completions.
Raiders are back IMO. Derek Carr, Khalil Mack, Amari Cooper are the faces of the franchise. I don't think the Raiders make the playoffs this year, but 8-8 is def possible. They will be dangerous. Carr will need to improve his deep ball accuracy.
Carr is a spread QB. For the Raiders to get the most value out of him they should be configuring the offense to play to his strengths. Last year he configured the offense for them by taking a glance downfield and then making a throw he felt comfortable making. There's no comfort zone in the NFL. You have to make the throws that need to be made downfield. If Geno used Carr's strategy he'd have a higher completion percentage and less picks and fumbles. He'd look a lot better in the process but the Jets offense would suck just the same. Just like the Raider's offense did last year.
Carr is more than a Spread QB. It's nice to have David Carr there showing you film religiously at a young age and learning terminologies. Pat Hill, the coach at Fresno prior to him getting fired, they ran a more pro-style offense. That's what separates him from Geno Smith IMO. I get what you are saying though, but 21 TDs 12 INT ain't too bad for a rookie. I hate the Raiders too.
Idk about Carr yet and Cooper hasn't played an NFL game yet but Mack is going to be the next big defensive name in this league. He's the whole package. Dynamic pass rusher, great against the run too.
I didn't intend to be understood as saying I feel like Carr has alread shown he's going to be a very good Qb. But he does look like an upgrade over what the Raiders have had at Qb for quite some time now. They need improvements in other areas as well to get back in the playoffs. But I do think he has them heading in the right direction. They will be an interesting team to follow this year.
They got some great young pieces - they will only get better IMO. Carr is going to be a good QB in this league, he was well-prepped by his brother.
