Parity Beneficiaries - Page 3

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:

**Rausch** · 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.

KCJohnny · 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?

KCJ
Arch-evil perpetrator of the Proctor Party Line

KCJohnny · 07-22-2001, 08:04 AM

Kyle,
The post below is NOT aimed at you, just the opening disclaimer...

Sincerely,
KCJ

milkman · 07-22-2001, 08:59 AM

Johnny,
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.

KCJohnny · 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.

KCJ
Holds a different standard for pathetic

milkman · 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.

KCJohnny · 07-22-2001, 09:50 AM

So, Milk!
How's the wife and kids?

KCJ
Objective compared to some posters...:confused:

Otter · 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!

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

07-22-2001, 08:03 AM	#32
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	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? KCJ Arch-evil perpetrator of the Proctor Party Line __________________
Posts: 6,347

07-22-2001, 08:04 AM	#33
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	Kyle, The post below is NOT aimed at you, just the opening disclaimer... Sincerely, KCJ __________________
Posts: 6,347

07-22-2001, 08:59 AM	#34
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	Johnny, 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. __________________
Posts: 70,769

07-22-2001, 09:16 AM	#35
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	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. KCJ Holds a different standard for pathetic __________________
Posts: 6,347

07-22-2001, 09:41 AM	#36
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	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. __________________
Posts: 70,769

07-22-2001, 09:50 AM	#37
KCJohnny Blind, deceived homer Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Maryland, USA Casino cash: $10004900	So, Milk! How's the wife and kids? KCJ Objective compared to some posters...:confused: __________________
Posts: 6,347