Parity Beneficiaries

KCJohnny · 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?

KCJ:confused:

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.

KCJohnny · 07-20-2001, 05:20 PM

Phobia,
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.

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

RedandGold · 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.

KCJohnny · 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.

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

Logical · 07-20-2001, 10:10 PM

KCJ,

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:

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

KCJohnny · 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!
KCJ
Technologically challenged

gh4chiefs · 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.

milkman · 07-21-2001, 08:54 AM

gh,
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.

KCJohnny · 07-21-2001, 10:00 AM

gh,
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.

KCJ

Cormac · 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.

milkman · 07-21-2001, 10:56 AM

Johnny,
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.

KCJohnny · 07-21-2001, 11:38 AM

In leiu of winning it all, I'll celebrate winning a lot.
Yes, they were dynasties IMO.
KCJ
Homervision = happiness!:D

milkman · 07-21-2001, 02:35 PM

Homerism=Happiness.

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

No offense intended to Russ.;)

07-20-2001, 04:56 PM
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	Parity Beneficiaries 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? KCJ:confused:
Posts: 6,347

07-20-2001, 05:05 PM	#2
Phobia Guest Casino cash: $	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.
Posts: n/a

07-20-2001, 05:20 PM	#3
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	Phobia, 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. KCJ Admits that parity should help the Chiefs, but LOOK at our schedule...
Posts: 6,347

07-20-2001, 05:22 PM	#4
RedandGold Born with Bad Habits Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Right Here Casino cash: $-1040000	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. __________________
Posts: 1,408

07-20-2001, 05:27 PM	#5
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	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. KCJ Wondering if he should lay $ on the Bolts and Bears or Bengals and Cards for the SB...:confused:
Posts: 6,347

07-20-2001, 10:10 PM	#6
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	KCJ, 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.
Posts: 31,579

07-20-2001, 10:15 PM	#7
The Bad Guy Scott Pioli Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The Copacobana Casino cash: $9273645	KCJ writes: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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. __________________
Posts: 23,216

07-21-2001, 07:43 AM	#8
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	Does anybody know how to make my picture (of the paratroops) smaller? I didn't realize it was taking up so much space. Sorry! KCJ Technologically challenged __________________
Posts: 6,347

07-21-2001, 08:39 AM	#9
gh4chiefs Regular Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Jefferson City, MO Casino cash: $-836408	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. __________________ Gary
Posts: 1,508

07-21-2001, 08:54 AM	#10
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	gh, 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. __________________
Posts: 70,769

07-21-2001, 10:00 AM	#11
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	gh, 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. KCJ __________________
Posts: 6,347

07-21-2001, 10:46 AM	#12
Cormac Haley sceptic.... Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: waiting it out....... Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 2,406

07-21-2001, 10:56 AM	#13
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	Johnny, 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. __________________
Posts: 70,769

07-21-2001, 11:38 AM	#14
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	In leiu of winning it all, I'll celebrate winning a lot. Yes, they were dynasties IMO. KCJ Homervision = happiness!:D __________________
Posts: 6,347

07-21-2001, 02:35 PM	#15
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	Homerism=Happiness. Oh well, as they say, "Ignorance is bliss." No offense intended to Russ.;) __________________
Posts: 70,769