Is the overall talent level of the NFL in a "down" year?

[RealSNR]

And WTF does that mean?

Somebody showed me the podcast from Monday's PTI show. After Wilbon and Bob Ryan discussed the Donks loss, they moved to talking about the Chiefs as the last undefeated team in the 2nd segment. The question was "Are the Chiefs possibly the best team in the NFL?"

Bob Ryan did the usual, "No, who have they played, they seem to only squeak by bad teams instead of asserting dominance yadda yadda." He continued on, though, and said, "What this shows with the Chiefs being the NFL's last remaining unbeaten is that the overall talent level is down this year. There is a lack of truly dominant teams."

They continued the rest of the discussion without qualifying what that meant. Wilbon and Ryan both gave credit to Andy Reid and the KC D and oddly enough Alex Smith for telling the Niners to go **** themselves and continuing to win on a new team. So it wasn't all negative shit about the Chiefs.

My question is do you have any idea what Ryan possibly meant by this, and do you agree with it if you do?

[Ace Gunner]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Have you noticed a decline in offensive line play across the NFL since the new CBA?

I sure have...

yes, and I noticed it declined after the first FA style CBA back about '96.

[keg in kc]

I'd say it's the opposite. There's not less talent, there's actually more, and it's spread out more evenly. More talent equals more parity. You've seen it develop in college football over the last 5 or 6 years, and now it's spreading into the big leagues.

[Chief Roundup]

Parity in the league. Not just in player movement but in coaches moving all around the league as well.

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The reality is that the CBA signed in 2011 changed everything.

There is far less offseason contact. There are no more Two-a-Days, which were vital to conditioning, scheme and camaraderie. There is limited contact during the season.

The result is that talented veteran teams have the edge due to continuity. Teams with higher turnover suffer more. Bad teams are not likely to turn around quickly.

It will probably be another five years before the playing field is leveled but parity has really never existed in the NFL, despite their intentions.

This, this and more of this. Players fought in the CBA to not work as hard. You could see the results of it immediately.

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by notorious

7-0 Giants, Cowboys, Packers, Steelers = Great teams


7-0 Chiefs = Must be a down year for talent


The media is butthurt because their darlings aren't the focus

This a million times !!

And if you play fantasy football it is definitely a down year especially for those who had players listed in that litany list of FF players done for the season this past weekend. The most I have ever seen in one weekend

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by notorious

7-0 Giants, Cowboys, Packers, Steelers = Great teams


7-0 Chiefs = Must be a down year for talent


The media is butthurt because their darlings aren't the focus

This.... F the world!

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The reality is that the CBA signed in 2011 changed everything.

There is far less offseason contact. There are no more Two-a-Days, which were vital to conditioning, scheme and camaraderie. There is limited contact during the season.

The result is that talented veteran teams have the edge due to continuity. Teams with higher turnover suffer more. Bad teams are not likely to turn around quickly.

It will probably be another five years before the playing field is leveled but parity has really never existed in the NFL, despite their intentions.

And only gets worse as the rules change making the game softer to the point where in due time 'old school die hards' like us will not watch anymore

[loochy]

yes talent is worse because chiefs are somehow good

/mediadouches

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Pam Oliver's Forehead

I wouldn't say the talent is down, but there's a changing of the guard. A few teams are on the decline while others are struggling to come up.

I have no idea what happened to Houston and Atlanta.

Atlanta has been absolutely decimated by injuries. They lost one of their pass rushers (Biermann) early on and have been starting two rookies UDFA LBers because of injuries to Dent and Weatherspoon.

Roddy White has been slowed by injury since camp and Jackson has missed most of the year (and now Jones is gone for the years). They lost their FB early on and are now starting ex-Chief Patrick DiMarco and can't run the ball at all. Their O-line has been in flux all year.

Despite all that, they have been in every game and have just come up short at the end.

It seems like injuries are up everywhere this year. I'm wondering if the new CBA's limitation on hitting and practice is to blame.

[trndobrd]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The reality is that the CBA signed in 2011 changed everything.

There is far less offseason contact. There are no more Two-a-Days, which were vital to conditioning, scheme and camaraderie. There is limited contact during the season.

The result is that talented veteran teams have the edge due to continuity. Teams with higher turnover suffer more. Bad teams are not likely to turn around quickly.

It will probably be another five years before the playing field is leveled but parity has really never existed in the NFL, despite their intentions.

Which makes the Chiefs season, with a new coaching staff and half the roster turned over, all the more remarkable.

[Mile High Mania]

This may have been mentioned already, but I was listening to Sirius yesterday and on one of the shows, they compared the # of players on IR now compared to this point in 2012.

In 2012, after 7 games --- roughly 100 players on IR.
In 2013, after 7 games --- roughly 200 players on IR.

That's a lot of studs and a lot of spares, but it changes the level of play.

[a pp roach]

good points made, especially about the favoritism of the media, but when you say dynasty about teams like the patriots and 49ers (who have been recently successful) it means something because of their success, not their convenient location on the map. especially for new england who has dominated the afc east for many years now. i guess what i mean is it's not that they're lazy, just they don't respect the chiefs yet. i do admit it's harder to be a midwest team without a star qb and get praise for a good season.

the chiefs went from 2-14 to 7-0, which is impressive and frustrating to be overlooked, but we have to embrace it, really. they're not gonna say we're elite yet because it's still only halfway through the first year after a dog eggnog fart of a season.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by a pp roach

it's still only halfway through the first year after a dog eggnog fart of a season.

what doe that even mean? LOL

[a pp roach]

[Bweb]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

It means that Tom Brady isn't 7-0 and Manning just lost and they don't know the name of a single player on the Chiefs roster other than the coach, which means that the NFL now sucks.

Last year, the talent was crazy sick. There was a true East and West coast team battling it out in the Super Bowl and the Harbaugh brothers were the toast of the media.

Now, the ****ing slap dick Chiefs are kicking ass and the national media has been too ****ing lazy to look beyond 45 miles inward from either coast to notice that anybody else actually plays football professionally.

I guarantee you that if the 49er's or Pats were 7-0 right now, these shitstains would be talking about "dynasty" and shit like that. The Chiefs have been so bad that the only reason that they could be 7-0 is that the entire NFL decided to take a nose dive right into a shitter in the 2013 season.

This exactly!