Think about it. Last year the Jets lost to the Patriots 27-25 and 17-16. Two games lost by a total of 3 points. We all know Rex tries to play the Patriots tough, but still that is an interesting stat. The Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. The Jets went (4-12). The Jets were a terrible team. The Patriots were World Champions. Yet so close. Now Revis is a Jet, Brady is suspended, Rex is in Buffalo, Suh went to Miami. The AFC East should be quite interesting in 2015. The whole league is though. You have true rebuilding teams like Tennessee or Tampa Bay, but even they have potential to compete. You have top teams like Seattle, Green Bay, New England, Denver, but they could easily be defeated. I know they want parity in the NFL, but I think it is actually working. Being optimistic about your team in August actually makes a lot of sense. Anything could happen. It helps having a Quarterback though. That is the one issue that holds back this Jets fan from getting too excited. So how close do you think The best team in the NFL is to the worst team?
I say the top 3-4 (Seahawks, packers etc) and the bottom 3-4 teams (Jags, redskins, etc) are significantly far apart. Every other team is pretty close.
Most teams are pretty close. The difference usually lays with the QB. You dont see a lot of top QB's on consistently bad teams.
Every year i think it's ESPN has their wheel of parity. It basically shows that (usually by like 7) every team could potential beat every team. Here is 2014s. Obviously this isn't perfect but makes an interesting point on this subject.
Yep. The QB can make that bad team look good too. And a bad QB can make a good team look bad. Really is pretty close. Yeah, I think that is pretty accurate and a great way to explain it.
The Seahawks and the Jaguars shouldn't even be playing in the same league. Parity is a real thing for about 20 teams in the NFL and then there are a half dozen who skew high almost every year and a half dozen who couldn't make the playoffs unless you handed them Andrew Luck. The NFL should be split into a 20 team First Division and a 12 Team Second Division. Let the bottom 3 from the First Division fall to the Second Division each season and the top 3 from the Second move up to the First.
If only the NFL were Futbol. Id agree if there wasn't a salary cap. This league is set up to be competitive from the sidelines to the starters. Everything hinges on the competence of the staff and how they think a winning team should be built. Of course there is some luck when it comes to drafting, but the best teams are built from the foundation up. Too bad the Jets foundation begins with Mr. Woody Johnson.
Everyone has a fair shake, and to top it off, the best free agent prospects (college) are reserved for the losers.
Yeah, I guess the Jacksonville Jaguars and Seattle Seahawks are on different levels right now. The Super Bowl may be out of reach for half the league before the season even begins, but hopes for a playoff spot are still there. Including a team like Jacksonville. Yep. Sadly some of the bad teams continue to make poor draft decisions. Okay, it would not be easy, but certainly possible.
There are 8 teams in the NFL that haven't made the playoffs in the last 5 seasons. There are 10 teams with at least a 4 season drought. Parity is a myth. A third of the league is down and out for a long stretch at any given point. The other big myth is that you can't spend several years rebuilding. The down and out teams are down and out for the most part because they keep making moves designed to make the fans think they have a shot next season or the season after. In fact most of the down and out teams really need a 3 or 4 year plan to get back on their feet and they should sell it that way.
Those stats are true, but some teams are just smarter or better coached than others. The talent levels and abilities of the teams are still pretty close.
while having a top QB certainly helps and recent history suggests having one is what is needed to go over the top, I think there's more than meets the eye. One on hand, most teams are seeking the QB and trying to build the offense rather than defense in today's NFL. Because of that we see dominant offensive teams going farther than others who typically have average defenses, in pursuit of the big show offensive unit. You DO NOT need a top 5 QB to win a Super Bowl. It is simply not true and statistics prove it. You can absolutely win a trophy in this league with a dominant defensive unit, paired with an average offense, for a multitude of reasons. A dominant defense typically puts your offense in a better position to succeed, both in terms of field position, TOP, and total points necessary to score. The Seahawks are a prime example as are the Championship Steeler teams in the Big Ben era. DOMINANT defenses, helping the offense be efficient and make plays. In Big Ben's championship seasons he was backed by a crazy defense. Russell Wilson same deal with the Seahawks. Big Ben since his defense took steps back from elite? 0 rings. Russell Wilson is sure to follow when the time comes. SF were contenders for a variety of years as well, backed by an ELITE defense. Since the defense took steps back from elite? Kaep suddenly sucks? I doubt he suddenly regressed individually for no reason. How about TB 2002? ELITE defense, average freakin offense. While conversely having an ELITE offense which requires a top 5 QB is certainly the same formula, it's only at the forefront BC that's the formula the MAJORITY of teams are following. And I think they are for a few reasons. First, it sells more tickets and generates more revenue. Second, while the search for a top 5 QB is for sure harder, it is one position on a unit as opposed to an entire unit of players required for an elite defense. Third, teams are reacting to rule changes and going the way of offense. Which is why I don't at all subscribe to the Top 5 QB is required argument. It's simply and factually not true. If we can get AVERAGE to slightly ABOVE AVERAGE QB play this year, and if our defense meets the bill it is expected to meet, we will be in the hunt for a Lombardi. <--- Yeah I said it. In fact last year for example, if the Bills were a tick better on offense those 9 wins turn to 12 wins and they are in the hunt for a championship. Their offense was generally very close to what was required but not quite there. Maybe if Orton had started from week 1 it would have been a totally different conversation and finished product.
I don't think this is true though. The coaching is a big factor and I'll give you that one but I think the talent levels aren't similar between the teams at the top and the teams at the bottom. When you have your most talented players at C and CB you're not in the same league as a team that has it's most talented players at QB and S. That's why the Jets have been the Jets for the last 9 years and the Steelers have been the Steelers. It's why the Seahawks are where they are right now. It's why the Browns are the Browns.
yet the Jets are 3-3 against the Steelers in the past 9 years. Which speaks to the point that teams are awfully close.
There are many ways to win thats for sure. The whole "elite" concept is meaningless though. Its just wording, its the entertainment aspect of the game.. Its why ESPN can hire jackasses that can barely formulate a sentence so long as they use the words "elite," they fill their quota for entertainment for the day. Having good, consistent QB play though is going to put you into a position to win more often than not and more often than any other position. I'm not saying something you didn't know or anything earth-shattering though. The QB position is getting more integral to winning every year they change the rules to benefit the position as well. but yea- I do agree that you don't need "top 5" qb to win the big one. I also think opinions about QBs being "top 5" is silly though and guys like Rivers, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, etc. would be considered "elite" or "top 5" if they had better play around them and won the big game. Not much difference At ALL between Roethlisberger and Rivers for example except for the fact that Roethlisberger has won a SB with great defenses and/or coaching that masked the teams' weaknesses. Yet, you'll hear the "can't win a SB without ELITE QB play.." argument over and over and people point to Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger has never been ELITE IMO and I thought 2014 was his best season ever. Its funny how winning SBs (a team concept) changes the perception of an individuals status. Rivers & Roethlisberger are both good QBS, as is Flacco, as is Ryan, as is Cam Newton as is Russell Wilson, as is Tony Romo, as is Matt Stafford, etc. The Jets or any team really can win or contend for a SB if they get good QB play... You don't need to have "elite" or great QB play or really, even consistent QB play beyond an individual season I mean- a QB could simply get hot one year and take the thing.. Mark Rypien, anyone. Hell you can win by masking the weaknesses of the QB as well, provided you win battles elsewhere. there are many ways to win in football. I wouldn't hang my hat on the 2002 Tampa model so much as I'd hang my hat on the 2009 New Orleans Saints model either. Both teams had weaknesses just in different spots.
In the last 9 years the Steelers are 90-54 in the regular season with 5 trips to the playoffs and 2 to the Super Bowl and a win in the Super Bowl. The year before the 9 year streak they won the Super Bowl. In the last 9 years the Jets are 69-75 in the regular season with 3 trips to the playoffs and no Super Bowl appearances. The two teams are not remotely close over the 9 year span. The year before the Jets were 4-12. If you see the Steelers and the Jets as an example of parity at work there's something wrong with your definition of parity.
