Who here likes NFL parity???

[TheProphet]

I think there is plenty of oportunity for dynasties in todays "parity" NFL. In fact, I think we have already seening one in New England. Parity hasn't killed that oportunity in my mind. Parity is just what it means...equal oportunity for the NFL teams. What it really comes down to is the people running the teams. Better run organizations are going to do better, and have ample oportunity to become a dynasty.

The salary cap is huge today, and is only getting bigger. Teams now have the oportunity to keep their core players. Heck, they even have the ability to keep their role players these days. Look at the cowboys, we haven't let any of our team go that we have really wanted, and we still are 12 million under the cap. Look at this years free agency. Very few players get away from teams that really want them. With the huge salary cap, and the different player tags, there is ample oportunity to keep players from leaving.

Todays NFL Parity is about running your organization properly. Good cap management and good drafting are the keys to the NFL. Free agency is not a way for a team to have a "legitimate shot of turning around their franchise". Its a way for teams to help shore up holes on their team. Please give an example of a team that used free agency to completely turn their team around. Take a look at the Commanders and see what it has done for them. No dynasy there.

Finally, if you want a dynasty, you have to have one key ingredient: A franchise quarterback. It really starts and stops right there. NFL parity has done nothing to diminish this.

BBQ

I agree with some of your thoughts. However, it is very difficult to keep your core talent on the team. Patriots have been successful despite losing many to free agency. To your point, they do have a great QB.
The past 10 years have been dissapointing to say the least. I'm still waiting for JJ to right the ship. Let's hope Wade can pull it all together. Sadly, my expectations are not real high - another playoff appearance perhaps, but don't see us going to SB anytime soon. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[burmafrd]

BBQ, you do not get it. You cannot keep the very best players for too long. There is no way, even with the size of the cap as it is now, to keep the Best QB, Best RB, Best WR on the team for long at all. If we had to keep the triplets now after their original contract its not possible. Look how Indy is now with Manning eating somuch of the cap, along with Harrison. They HAD to Edgerin go- no choice. And they have had to let some very good D players go. Freeny is going to hurt as well.
Think how much Emmitt, Aikman and Irvin would cost NOW. Then add LA and Eric Williams and Nate and Tui and Step on the Line; Novacek at TE. Then HALEY and Lett and DEION and others in the Defense. NO way we could even keep HALF of them. So no TRUE dynasty- no TRUE great team- is possible now outside an incredible draft for about 4 years in a row. You would have to get ALL those mentioned players in that time period.

 

[TheProphet]

BBQ, you do not get it. You cannot keep the very best players for too long. There is no way, even with the size of the cap as it is now, to keep the Best QB, Best RB, Best WR on the team for long at all. If we had to keep the triplets now after their original contract its not possible. Look how Indy is now with Manning eating somuch of the cap, along with Harrison. They HAD to Edgerin go- no choice. And they have had to let some very good D players go. Freeny is going to hurt as well.
Think how much Emmitt, Aikman and Irvin would cost NOW. Then add LA and Eric Williams and Nate and Tui and Step on the Line; Novacek at TE. Then HALEY and Lett and DEION and others in the Defense. NO way we could even keep HALF of them. So no TRUE dynasty- no TRUE great team- is possible now outside an incredible draft for about 4 years in a row. You would have to get ALL those mentioned players in that time period.

Exactly right my friend...with the notable exception of the New England Patriots who have been fortunate enough to "plug and play" different folks when they've lost key talent to free agency. Well stated.

 

[burmafrd]

Lets be straight here- with the exception of Brady and Seymour, and MAYBE one or two others, none of the Patriot players are as good as the 8-10 best guys on the Boys roster of 92-95.

 

[Pats Fan]

Good coaches, a good FO, lucky breaks in the draft make for today's winners. And of great importance, a leader as a QB (well the talent too). That is the luck part.

I like parity because personally I do not want to see the same team every year. The top talent this year will be New England, San Diego, and Indy. They win for a reason. There is a lot of talent on these teams. Plus they use the off-season to improve. Although Indy and San Diego has not done much. Surprising to me.

Take a look at the Texans. They are in the cellar for a reason. I don't have to explain why. One dumb mistake after another. But they do have the opportunity if they get their ducks in a row. Money should never be the determining factor in whether a team wins or not.

 

[burmafrd]

But I believe that you should not penalize teams that draft very well by forcing them to let good players go because of the Cap.

 

[BBQ101]

BBQ, you do not get it. You cannot keep the very best players for too long. There is no way, even with the size of the cap as it is now, to keep the Best QB, Best RB, Best WR on the team for long at all. If we had to keep the triplets now after their original contract its not possible. Look how Indy is now with Manning eating somuch of the cap, along with Harrison. They HAD to Edgerin go- no choice. And they have had to let some very good D players go. Freeny is going to hurt as well.
Think how much Emmitt, Aikman and Irvin would cost NOW. Then add LA and Eric Williams and Nate and Tui and Step on the Line; Novacek at TE. Then HALEY and Lett and DEION and others in the Defense. NO way we could even keep HALF of them. So no TRUE dynasty- no TRUE great team- is possible now outside an incredible draft for about 4 years in a row. You would have to get ALL those mentioned players in that time period.

What is your definition of a dynasty then? A team that has truly great players, or a team that consistantly wins year after year, or does it have to be both?

The New England Patriots run from 2001 to present compares pretty well with the Cowboy run from 1992 - 1996.

As to Indianapolis, the still have Payton, the still have Harrison, and they still have Freeny. Edgerin they let go because he was on the downside of his carreer. The got better at RB by letting him go.

I see your point however. Teams wont be able to load up on talent for Long periods of time. The salary cap will prevent that, in addition to other teams not letting their marque players get away.

My point however is that there will still be dynasties even in the parity NFL.

BBQ

 

[DallasEast]

"Parity"? Hated it. Always have. Always will.

I've been an opponent to it before it reared it's ugly head a few years following the inception of the first parity friendly CBA in '94. I commented on it a number of times over on the old DMN board years ago and several times here. It's received lots of feedback at both sites.

So, it's an old topic.

Anyhoo, the last true dynasty the NFL will ever see again were the Cowboys of the 90's. Some people, like myself, consider a dynasty as being a legendary team which embodies the best talented players of any era from top-to-bottom of that team's roster. Examples of which are the Packers of the 60's, Steelers and Cowboys of the 70's, 49er's of the 80's. Teams which will be remembered throughout history.

Then there are those who consider any old team that gets on a winning streak to be a 'dynasty'. Kinda like how people today treat the word 'diva' in the music industry. Where the label was once only applied to a few, now divas can be found on practically every CD or download imaginable. The word has lost it's true meaning--as has 'dynasty'.

I'm sure that some will use the Patriots as a current dynasty and I'll respectfully disagree. New England has enjoyed the fruits of winning several NFL championships via a mixture of a handful of moderately great players (Brady, Seymour, etc.), a ton of steady overachievers, a great ex-kicker (Vinateri [sp?]), focused coaching and undeniable quantity of luck. Take away one or two of those factors and the Patriots 'dynasty' would have been a dud.

On the other hand, the last great NFL dynasty simply lined up and overpowered its opponents. If not for the last breaths of the 80's true dynasty, the 90's Cowboys would've won four (or more) straight Super Bowls. Heck, a dynasty can take a half-arsed coach and win a Super Bowl. And that's a fact.

End of rant. I wonder which team will get the dynasty label this season? It happens every year now. One good sustained winning streak and it's like Madden would say, "BOOM! They're a dynasty!"

 

[burmafrd]

A DYNASTY is a GREAT TEAM WITH GREAT TALENT.
NE does not qualify either way.

 

[burmafrd]

The 95 Team, even with less talent then the 93 team, still won a SB with a somewhat good coach, without great assistants. Tell me that NE would have
won ANY of their SBs without Belicek, Crennel and Weis.

 

[BBQ101]

But I believe that you should not penalize teams that draft very well by forcing them to let good players go because of the Cap.

You need to explain this further. Who is having to let good drafted talent go? Not the Cowboys. We have been able to sign everyone we have wanted to sign, and still have plenty of cap room.

If teams are being penalized, is it more likely because they are making poor decisions, and not managing their cap correctly?

BBQ

 

[Pats Fan]

BURMAFRD - True but, that is the price of keeping parity -- and to me it is worth it. New talent comes along every day, paying for old and overrated talent is another bad choice by teams.

To me when I look at a player like Reggie Bush, I say WOW. This draft also has some great talent. If a team has the smarts, they can overcome losing players that are overpaid and somewhat overrated. And if a team sees the talent, well sign them to a long team contract. Spend the money.

I think this year we got pretty lucky picking up Thomas. I think he will be the exception to the rule.

So, if you are the Texans last year, you pass on Bush???? Well, I am not the best to evaluate talent, but even I would have drafted him without even thinking.

 

[BBQ101]

A DYNASTY is a GREAT TEAM WITH GREAT TALENT.
NE does not qualify either way.

Well, we disagree on this one. Personally, I don't care how much "talent" you have if you don't win.

The Pats won 3 superbowls in 4 years...just as much as the Dynasty the Cowboys put together in the early-mid 90s. How can they not be considered a dynasty? Because they are not a GREAT TEAM with GREAT TALENT? Then how did they freaken win super bowls?

BBQ

 

[DallasEast]

And if a team sees the talent, well sign them to a long team contract.

Long-term contract? What long-term contracts did Damien Woody, Deion Branch, Lawyer Milloy, etc., sign with New England?

 

[DallasEast]

How can they not be considered a dynasty? Because they are not a GREAT TEAM with GREAT TALENT? Then how did they freaken win super bowls?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1446157&postcount=28

 

[BBQ101]

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1446157&postcount=28

I understand DallasEast, its not all about wins with you or burmafrd. Its about talent.

You can have the talent...I'll take the wins.

Ok...enough of the silliness. I think it comes down to in the short term, we would all love for the cowboys to win every year be it by luck, talent, or whatever.

In the long term, when you go back and look at a particular teams accomplishment, you always want to be able to compare apples to apples. With the advent of the salary cap and free agency, its now turned into trying to compare apples with oranges.

If I could swing this around a bit. Which is more impressive then. The Dallas team loaded with top to bottom talent winning 3 superbowls in 4 years, or the New England team in the era of parity winning 3 of 4?

I also think asking the question on how we as Cowboy fans feel about parity is going to get a bit of a biased answer seeing as how the Cowboys have had some of the greatest dynasties ever.

When it comes down to it however, parity was the correct decision for the NFL. As a business, it is a smashing success. Owners are getting richer, players are getting paid way better...Is the product on the field better? Well, I think you would get different answers from different fans. Of course when you have an owner that is willing to spend to win, as a fan, you don't want a salary cap. If your a fan of a team on the other side of the fence however...well...it might be a bit different.

BBQ

 

[Crown Royal]

I personally feel as though the league is unethical WITHOUT free agency. Players SHOUlD have the right to negotiate with ANYONE when their contract is over, not be stuck in the same place because they happened to be drafted by them.

 

[ZeroClub]

There is enough evidence to proclaim parity a business success for now.

I'm skeptical that it is a wise long-term strategy. I suspect that team-specific fan loyalty will erode over time, and the sport will become more vulnerable as fans become more fickle.

 

[Crown Royal]

There is enough evidence to proclaim parity a business success for now.

I'm skeptical that it is a wise long-term strategy. I suspect that team-specific fan loyalty will erode over time, and the sport will become more vulnerable as fans become more fickle.

I don't. I was as much a Cowboys fan 7 years ago when they were devoid of talent as I am now.

 

[Hostile]

I like parties, too.

The only post in the thread that makes me smile.