Running NFL Week XVI thread

About Thursday night's game - those without NFL Network should be glad you didn't see it. Nothing like two mediocre (if not worse) teams in December with only a couple of days rest playing, and one having a rookie making his first NFL start at QB. It was a butt-ugly game played by two butt-ugly teams. The Packers are somehow alive for a playoff spot despite not having beaten one team with a winning record: Vikings twice, Lions twice - those Lions wins should be worth 1/2 a win at best - Dolphins, Cardinals and 49ers.

Oh, and I think Cris Collinsworth is a good color commentator. I like Bryant Gumbel, but not in this role. No sir, not at all.

 

That stat about the Chiefs making the playoffs only once in the last nine years shocked me. I never would have guessed that. For a team that's usually OK, the Chiefs are sharing some pretty shitty company there.

And with Herm in charge things aren't changing anytime...ahh you know the drill.

 

Excellent point, though I doubt the MFL crowd will listen. The Patriots had their team picked apart through free agency and/or an unwillngness to spend, depending who you listen to.

Check out the Steelers of the 1970s. That was a team that stayed on top by keeping the core group of players together, something that would have never happened with pure free agency.

I mean, is the 70s the kind of ERA in football some of you "legislated mediocrity" types want to get back to? There was still revenue sharing, thus a relatively even playing field. There was no real free agency, thus no need for a cap. And the draft still ran the same way, and having a higher pick in the draft plays a much larger role in football than, say, baseball.

Sorry, the rules led to competitive balance then, too.

 

Here we go again.

The Cleveland Browns won their division in 1985 with an 8-8 record.

In 1987 the Colts won their division at 9-6. The Vikings made the playoffs at 8-7 and made the NFC Championship game.

Seattle won its division in 1988 at 9-7.

Buffalo won its division in 1989 at 9-7. The Houston Oilers won the wild card at 9-7.

In 1990, the Steelers, Oilers, and Bengals all tied for their division title at 9-7.

In 1991, the Jets and Dolphins tied at 8-8 with the Jets taking the wild card spot.

Spare me the "back in my day" BS.

 

Parity is a function of arithmetic, and not the salary cap brand, either.

1. When a sport plays more games, more teams will trend towards the .500 mark.
2. When a sport expands the number of teams that make the playoffs, more of them will qualify with poorer records that are closer to , or in the NBA's case, below .500.
3. When a sport subdivides itself into more conferences, divisions, etc., it increases the probability factors 1 and 2 will combine for serious embarrassment.
If the NFL went back to a 14-game schedule and eliminated its wild-card teams, which I as a fan don't recommend, the playoff teams now would have records like this: Pats 10-4, Colts 11-3, Ravens 11-3, Chargers 12-2, Cowboys 9-5, Bears 12-2, Saints 9-5, and Seahawks 8-6, and nobody would be bitching about parity.

 

trend as a verb ... come on, Michael, you're better than that!

 

Completely agree. JoPo wrote a column earlier this week that pounded the nail home with a 50-pound sledge hammer. He basically said that he has avoided the hot seat for 18 years because the Chiefs have never had a 3-13 season... because they've been good enough to just miss the playoffs time and again. And he's right.

Not only have the Chiefs not reached the Super Bowl, they've blown home-field advantage in their last three playoff appearances.

 

Oh, stop using logic. Don't you know that the NFL's legislated mediocrity is ruining the game!?

I know at least some of it is the whining by the big-market fans, especially in New York, who can't get over the fact that their teams don't dominate the league.

I don't know why this is so hard to get. The NFL has always had rules that create competitive balance, in large part because people like Wellington Mara understood how important it is for the league's national appeal.

There was never pure free agency without a salary cap in the NFL. They came in together and all the cap did was maintain the balance that had already been there.

It is free agency itself moreso than the salary cap that led to the dismantling of potential dynasties. It has also led to a more mediocre level of play overall because teams don't have the same continuity as they did before free agency. More than any other sport, football teams get better as the players learn to work together. Offensive lines have to mesh. Quarterbacks have to get timing with their receivers.

When you can't keep a unit together, the overall level of play suffers. And often the big-money free agent doesn't play as well as he adapts to the new team.

Throw in expansion and those are the two things hurting the quality of play in the NFL over the last 10-15 years or so. They are much larger factors than the so-called league-legislated parity.

And one more thing. I keep hearing about the cap hurting the overall talent level, as if there are all these great players who can't find jobs because teams don't have the money to spend.

Please, somebody give me a name. Just one name. I've asked before, but it still hasn't happened.

 

Because NFL '82 ('79, '84, whatever) sucked balls until they put Costas on it.

NBC definitely passed NFL Today when they did the opening montage as a highlight reel of the previous weeks' AFC best of's. THAT was awesome, like a whole new week of Alcoa Fantastic Finishes.

You youngsters who have been weened on non-stop highlight shows have no idea how cool that was.

 

Adding to your point, the 1990 Saints, led by the formidable John Fourcade (Bobby Hebert sat out the season in a contract squabble), made the playoffs at 8-8, the first year they expanded to two wild cards.

 

There's a big difference between a 9-7 and an 8-8 team.