View Full Version : Parity Beneficiaries

07-20-2001, 04:56 PM
Since the '98 season, parity has made the NFL conventional wisdom arcane. Teams with losing records the year prior are regularly advancing to the Conference championships and even the SB, even WINNING the SB.

Who picked the Titans, Rams, G-men and Ravens? NONE of us. Only the Giants had a winning season prior to their SB run (9-7?).

Losers get a soft schedule and high draft picks and seem to be competing with alarming regularity (no, sorry Bengals fans, the nightmare must go on for you...).

Who are this year's beneficiaries of the parity regime?
Bears? Steelers? Cards? Bolts? Pats? 49ers? Chiefs?

There IS no conventional wisdom established in this new category, so let's predict the impossible.

I say the Bolts could go 11-5 and the Steelers could go 13-3.

Stranger things have happened...

...your take?


07-20-2001, 05:05 PM
I kinda agree on your Steelers (9-7 or better) theory, but the BOLTS???? They won't win more than 6, IMHO. I'd make a friendly wager on that - if the bolts win 7 or more games, I'll attend Mass 2 weeks straight. If they lose 10 or more games, you skip Mass for 2 weeks.

I think the surprise team will be the Bills. I know they haven't been horrible lately, but they've missed the playoffs. They'll place 2nd in the East and get a wildcard.

Carolina is another team I think could turn it around this year. However, they have the makings of some RBBC and that always frightens me.

07-20-2001, 05:20 PM
There is no scenario where i would miss Mass, but I sure wish I could get you to go! You'd be soooooo glad you did!

That's really no stretch to bet on the Bills IMO. Top 10 finishers in rushing offense, total offense and total defense. Lost some tough close games, kinda like the '99 Raiders or '98 Titans.

As for the Bolts, let's not forget that they inherit the softest schedule the programmers can manage. That was certainly a factor in the Rams' SB run.

I really think the Steelers should have been 12-4 last year. Three, count 'em, THREE games lost to to absolutely INSANE officiating.

I think with just a little D improvement and a healthy Garrison Hearst that the 49ers could win the NFC West. They will also be a beneficiary of parity's soft scheduling.

Admits that parity should help the Chiefs, but LOOK at our schedule...

07-20-2001, 05:22 PM
I agree with the Steelers as well, but they will never be a true contender until they get a real QB under center.

As for the Bolts, how can they not be a turnaround team? If they only win 2 games, they would have improved 100% from the 2000 season. Their defense has been solid for years, and they have finally put forth the effort to add some offensive support. I definitely look for LaDainian Tomlinson to have a huge rookie season. Will they make it to .500? Who knows. The fact that they are playing 8 of their games against the AFC West would make me think that it would be VERY difficult for them to do.

I think that the Chiefs have as good of a chance as anyone to be playoff contenders in 2001 even though I believe that our best football under Vermeil will not be realized until either 2002 or 2003.

I think that the NFC is clearly the weaker conference at this point, and if there is going to be a team that has a chance of coming from nowhere and making a legitimate Super Bowl run in 2001, it would have to come from there. Even though I believe that Tampa Bay is going to be the NFC team to beat this season, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Bears make a little noise in their division.

07-20-2001, 05:27 PM
What is so strange about this parity thing is that it is always a team that nobody expects...

...Baltimore? St. Louis? Atlanta? Tennessee?

Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on the 'Gals after all...

It could another team that NOBODY gives a chance- I put the Bears in that category. It could happen.

Wondering if he should lay $ on the Bolts and Bears or Bengals and Cards for the SB...:confused:

07-20-2001, 10:10 PM

The Steelers maybe, but living here in Bolts country I can tell you their offensive line is going to be worse than pathetic. With their schedule 8-8 is possible heck with a lot of luck 9-7 but 11-5 is just not going to happen. It is a good thing Flutie is a scrambler and tough to boot or he would be dead meat for sure. Still do not think he will manage more than 12 games.

The Bad Guy
07-20-2001, 10:15 PM
KCJ writes:

As for the Bolts, let's not forget that they inherit the softest schedule the programmers can manage. That was certainly a factor in the Rams' SB run.

I don't think it was a factor at all.

You still have to win in the playoffs, and that is the deciding factor when you win the Super Bowl.

The other factors were that they had a great QB, RB, and wide receivers that year. Along with great coaching, and a capable defense.

They had to beat the Vikings, Bucs, and Titans. Three teams that year that were no walks in the park. I don't think their last place schedule had really anything to do with their Super Bowl run. You don't pick the teams you play on Sunday. You just line em up and the better team will come out on top.

07-21-2001, 07:43 AM
Does anybody know how to make my picture (of the paratroops) smaller? I didn't realize it was taking up so much space. Sorry!
Technologically challenged

07-21-2001, 08:39 AM
Hey Chaplain,

That's a good post and you're making a good point about parity. IMHO, parity sucks, I kind of like football dynastys (I include the Chiefs in that even though they didn't when the big one during the 90's) I know a lot of you like it and that's okay, we can agree to disagree.

To me if we truly get to parity, then it's basically going come down to the luck of the draw as to who wins and who loses. I like to see teams advance because they've built the best team, beat the best opponents and are the BEST all around team. I've not convinced that's what we've seen the last couple of years.

07-21-2001, 08:54 AM
There is absolutely no way that the Chiefs in the 90s can be considered a dynasty.
Dynasties win championships.
Without championships, there can be no dynasty.
Anything short of that fails to qualify.

07-21-2001, 10:00 AM
I agree with you. Parity makes the game more exciting, less predictable, but it is artificial, like the DH in the AL (baseball). We've all gotten used to it, though, its a part of the game (industry).

Don't let Milkman get you down. He hates everything. He's 'Mikey" on the old Life cereal commercial.


07-21-2001, 10:46 AM
It's hard to pick the surprise team. I agree that the Steelers could do well. I expect Kordell Stewart to do well this season. Both they and the Bolts lost a bunch of close games last season. I predict SD will win 7 or 8 games, but I don't see them making the playoffs. I think the Bills have lost too much of the center of their defense to contend this season (Holecek, the LB that went to SD (Sam Rogers?), Ted Washington...). Also they lack an obvious starting RB, unless Travis Henry is better than expected (which he might be :)). The 9ers are on their way back too, but losing Garner is a big setback unless Hearst has a miracle comeback. Two teams that might overachieve this season IMO are the Jets and the Lions. Also I expect the Saints to keep improving.

07-21-2001, 10:56 AM
I'm assuming by your most recent reply that you consider the 90s Chiefs a dynasty.

You probably consider the 90s Jazz a dynasty as well.

Ah, HomerVision.
May the fantasies never die.

07-21-2001, 11:38 AM
In leiu of winning it all, I'll celebrate winning a lot.
Yes, they were dynasties IMO.
Homervision = happiness!:D

07-21-2001, 02:35 PM

Oh well, as they say, "Ignorance is bliss."

No offense intended to Russ.;)

The Bad Guy
07-21-2001, 02:46 PM

How are they dynasties when they never won a championship?

To become a dynasty in sports, you need to be like the 90's 49ers, and Cowboys. Or in the NBA, the 90's Chicago Bulls.

Winning championships is what it is all about.

The Chiefs and the Jazz are not in the same class as those teams in the 90s.

07-21-2001, 03:31 PM
For Pete's sake guys, lighten up! I was the one who used the term "dynasty" and all I meant was the Chiefs were a winning team that returned to the playoffs year after year during the 90's.

I find it amazing that there are so many people on this board willing to start an argument over the silliest things.

07-21-2001, 04:05 PM
Welcome to the Planet.
What you have just encountered is the PPL, or, Planet Party Line.
Dissent is strongly discouraged here. The cardinal sin is to speak affirmingly of anything the Chiefs did right before Dick Vermiel came to save us from ourselves.

You'll catch on.

Hang in there, bro!
Human bull's eye:)

keg in kc
07-21-2001, 04:14 PM
John, enough with that crap already. There's no great conspiracy just because people might happen to have a different opinion than you do and aren't afraid to voice it. There's a heck of a lot of argument here about a lot of things, football and otherwise, and in fact you're probably one of the loudest barriers to open discussion because you tend to whine and shout "FOUL! Planet Party Line! FOUL!" whenever someone marches to the beat of a drum other than yours. You know, your constant "nobody listens to me" attitude when your own ears are closed more times than not...

This is just like the real world, not everyone agrees but we do our best to coexist.

Show a little respect, man. We're all just as entitled to our opinions (and they vary widely I should add) as you are. ;)

07-21-2001, 04:21 PM

Actually, I was one game away from winning $1500 last season through a super bowl prediction bet.

I picked Baltimore and Minnesota to go to the big game.

I consider myself part of the planet so “NONE of us” doesn’t quite fly.

Just an FYI ;)

07-21-2001, 04:31 PM
Just because just about everyone disagrees with about 99% of the time doesn't mean that's there's a planet party line.
It just means that you are wrong about 99% of the time.

Sometimes the easiest answers are the right answers.

The Bad Guy
07-21-2001, 04:34 PM
Proctor is pulling this public enemy #1 garbage because he thinks people actually set out to disagree with his points.

Wake up to reality Proctor. People disagree with your opinions because they are far-fetched sometimes, not because you don't agree with the party-line.

You will be hard-pressed to find a pack of people who will defend Jimmy Raye, Gunther Cunningham, RBBC, Kurt Schottenheimer, or Willie Shaw like you did, or continue to do.

I refuse to defend mediocrity. And because I refuse to do so, that makes me part of the Chiefs party line?


You called the Chiefs a dynasty, which is wrong. Dynasties aren't made in the regular season, but the playoffs.

Your it's me against the board routine is old.

07-21-2001, 07:26 PM
I didn't mention any names, but a few of you have come forward to defend the PPL. LOL!


Otter: You get a bye. Care to pick this year's Cinderella?

Self-pitying, barrier ercting egomaniac

keg in kc
07-21-2001, 07:34 PM
Funny that you would say that John, when Frank, Milkman and myself disagree on a number of things. Ask Red Eyes and myself what we think of the Vermeil hiring and see what sort of answer you get...

You might not know that because you rarely (apparently) pay attention to any thread that you don't start or doesn't deal with Marty or Gunther. Maybe you do, and just don't post, but either way, you don't seem to participate in much outside of your own threads, religious threads, and Marty/Gunther/martyball threads.

We may all not think Marty was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I don't think that's because of any party line. I didn't respect Marty for years before I came to Kansas City because this team always choked in the playoffs. Remember I only got on-board two years ago and was never followed the team closely when Marty was here. But, again, what I did know was that KC just didn't get it done in the playoffs, and I attributed that to head coaching decisions at the time (and still do).

Kind of hard to call me a part of any party line...

I'm being polite, John, but this sort of behavior is what costs you credibility in my eyes. You talk about opinions but seem to respect none but your own. You talk but don't listen, and do everything you can to devalue and/or deflate the beliefs of other folks by simply ignoring them or dismissing them out of hand.

Zebedee DuBois
07-21-2001, 07:39 PM
We had a party line when I was a kid.... great for eavesdropping on the neighbors.

feeling nonconformist tonight. ;)

Chiefs Pantalones
07-21-2001, 08:18 PM
90s Chiefs a dynasty?!?!? LOL!!!!:eek: :D

Geez, Proc, you must love mediocrity! I have never seen or heard anyone say that they think any team that doesn't win when it counts, but successful when it counts the least (regular season) a dynasty!!! That is hilarious!!!!!!!!:D :D

Gee, I hope the Chiefs are 7-9, 9-7 for the rest of eternity, and never win the Super Bowl!! Then they would not be a dynasty, but the best team of all time!!!!!:rolleyes: :D


is glad he is not a GM or HC or owner, or everything/anything that has to do with any organization for the NFL, etc.

no wonder you love Marty and co. so much

Chiefs Pantalones
07-21-2001, 08:33 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm still laughing!!!!:D :D :D

That is the first time I have ever heard a team, in any sport, be called a dynasty, without winning ANY championships!!!:D :D


Low standards? I think so.

Its not your fault though, Proc, if it weren't for Marty or Jerry Sloan, your mind would not be so flooded with "best record, but no championships? YES!!!! whoohoo!"


07-21-2001, 10:18 PM
Ok guys, call the word police. :rolleyes: FORGIVE me for using the word dynasty. I mispoke, OK? Can we just drop it already and I promise to be more careful in my selection of words in the future.

Now back to the point, I don't like parity because as a Chiefs fan I feel I was the beneficiary being a fan of a team that was (insert whatever phrase you feel appropriate here) during the 90's. They were a good team, unfortunately not a championship team. But for the better part of the 90's, you could count on them to be in the playoffs and to win more games than they lost, unlike a lot of other teams who were losers year in and year out.

Now with the parity stuff, these said losers are suddenly SB champs and the Chiefs are falling down along with the losers and it sucks!

Chiefs Pantalones
07-21-2001, 10:44 PM
You gotta have faith, gh!

Our time will come, don't worry. And I believe that we have a better shot at the big one with this staff than with any other staff we have had in the past.


thinks IT could be right around the corner, keep the faith, gh!;) :)

California Injun
07-21-2001, 11:43 PM
If the Jazz were a dynasty, then what does that make the Lakers (13 rings and counting) and the Celtics (16 rings)?

Maybe you were confusing "Dynasty" with "Dinosaurs" (aka Stockton and Malone)?

07-22-2001, 04:18 AM
Chiefs were not a dynasty...

I think the bills were, even without a SB ring. Those underachieving ******** OWNED the AFC for almost five years....I still hate them. Still....

I will support Gun and Marty...The stooges are on their own.

07-22-2001, 08:03 AM
Kyle, My PPL post was intended to be humorous (as gh's "word police.")

Relax, dude.

There are people who believe that no SB = mediocrity/failure.
I'm glad that I'm notb your son. I guess if I didn't graduate as Class Valedictorian every year I must be some kind of idiot who can't achieve scholastic success. I'm also glad your mentality is not in charge of the US Army, else every time I suffered a casulalty I would get relieved of command for 'failure.'

NFL football is entertainment. Just for fun, see?
If I get entertained because I LOVE my team, not because they PERFORM better than the other 30 teams EVERY year, then I think I'm seeing NFL football for what it is. The perpetual criticism, disparaging of players/coaches/GMs and constant ccomparing to this year's model SB winner sure make a lot of you sound like unhappy campers.

I am not happy with 'mediocrity' (Chiefs are not mediocre IMO) but I will find things to be positive about, laud legitimate achievement, and hail my favorite players/coaches just because that's why I played/love the sport.

NEWS FLASH: Your team is NOT going to win the SB/WS/NBAFs every year. Are they 'mediocre losers'? Do you love them any less?

Arch-evil perpetrator of the Proctor Party Line

07-22-2001, 08:04 AM
The post below is NOT aimed at you, just the opening disclaimer...


07-22-2001, 08:59 AM
Regular season success is fine. I'll even admit I enjoyed the regular season success. It's all, we as Chiefs fans have to hang our hat on really.

However, at playoff time the Marty-led Chiefs were not even mediocre, they were just plain pathetic.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

07-22-2001, 09:16 AM
There was 1 pathetic game, one sound beating, and the rest were very close.
Pathetic: '92, 16-0 loss to Bolts in SD.
Sound beating: 30-13 to Buffalo in '93 (AFC Title game)
I believe the rest were either wins or losses by 10 or less.

Holds a different standard for pathetic

07-22-2001, 09:41 AM
No Johnny,
Pathetic is the Chiefs scoring in the playoffs.
Pathetic is the Chiefs awful game plan and philosphy, that reslted in that pitiful lack of scoring.
Pathetic is the Chiefs record once the regular season ends and the postseason begins.

Pathetic is postseason Martyball.

07-22-2001, 09:50 AM
So, Milk!
How's the wife and kids?

Objective compared to some posters...:confused:

07-22-2001, 10:06 PM
KC Johnny,

I graciously accept your bye. As far as my Cinderella pick for the year: Carolina Panthers.

You heard it here first!