Who here likes NFL parity???

[PullMyFinger]

Talk like that is what bought the cap to the NFL in the first place. I dont care what happens to the other NFL teams as long as Dallas is winning. And there would be about 5 good games on Sundays. About 10 teams knocking the snot outta each other in the playoffs, instead of some farts-in-the winds that get lucky once in a while and get blown out in the playoffs.

Some of the best games Ive ever seen were the NFC championship games against the Niners, but that will never happen again, thanks to the "We even treat the celler dwellers equally" NFL.

 

[DallasEast]

the game is more competetive now across the board than it has ever been. you guys want to be shocked because some miracle david and goliath story but the fact of the matter is 99% of the time its 35-3 and the underdog loses.

i guess you guys dont mind sitting through 14 bad games and 2 good ones each and every week and the early playoff games being blowouts more than half the time but personally i like the way it is.

IMO, there are very few true underdogs each season nowadays. Since parity has insured that virtually every team has a chance of winning each week, most losing teams don't appear to be underdogs. The only true underdog I witnessed last season was the Raiders. They couldn't practically do anything right, so they're loses were anticipated. I didn't get that feeling from any other team on a week-by-week basis. Not the Lions. Not the Browns. Not the Dolphins. Not even Buccaneers or Cardinals.

The word 'blowout' in football may go the way of the word 'dynasty'.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Talk like that is what bought the cap to the NFL in the first place. I dont care what happens to the other NFL teams as long as Dallas is winning. And there would be about 5 good games on Sundays. About 10 teams knocking the snot outta each other in the playoffs, instead of some farts-in-the winds that get lucky once in a while and get blown out in the playoffs.

Some of the best games Ive ever seen were the NFC championship games against the Niners, but that will never happen again, thanks to the "We even treat the celler dwellers equally" NFL.

i try not to view the league through the lense of a myopic fan. i dont cheer for the house in blackjack and the only reason why i can still like the red sox despite their extravagance is because the yankees are much much worse.

NFL attendance and ratings are higher now than they have ever been. teams have now adjusted to the realities of the cap and i think this next decade you are going to see teams that draft well and are wise in free agency be able to retain their players and keep their advantage.

Its just not going to be as easy as it was in the past and i see nothing wrong with more of a challenge. it makes success that much sweeter.

 

[DallasEast]

NFL attendance and ratings are higher now than they have ever been. teams have now adjusted to the realities of the cap and i think this next decade you are going to see teams that draft well and are wise in free agency be able to retain their players and keep their advantage.

The only way I see greater number of players being retained is if the new CBA can counter the greed factor. There is just too much television money out there for the players not to be tempted by to leave for greener pastures.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IMO, there are very few true underdogs each season nowadays. Since parity has insured that virtually every team has a chance of winning each week, most losing teams don't appear to be underdogs. The only true underdog I witnessed last season was the Raiders. They couldn't practically do anything right, so they're loses were anticipated. I didn't get that feeling from any other team on a week-by-week basis. Not the Lions. Not the Browns. Not the Dolphins. Not even Buccaneers or Cardinals.

The word 'blowout' in football may go the way of the word 'dynasty'.

i dont think so. if it wasnt for the fact that jones completely mismanaged the draft and contracts at the dawn of the cap era we wouldnt be so upset with things. The Patriots, Colts and Ravens have all been very very good for quite some time now. Saying that the Pats are not a dynasty is jsut ludicrous.

the major difference is we cannot overpay for backups and keep them from other teams like we could in the past nor can other teams. that makes those other teams significantly better but really only makes injuries more of a concern and hurts special teams for the teams losing their backups.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only way I see greater number of players being retained is if the new CBA can counter the greed factor. There is just too much television money out there for the players not to be tempted by to leave for greener pastures.

the backups are going to leave but look at us and the guys weve resigned. if we so choose were still far enough under the cap that we could retain Newman, Romo, Adams and Jones should we choose to do so over the next season.

Thats fantastic. We just have to let guys like Shanle and Fowler go.

 

[PullMyFinger]

i try not to view the league through the lense of a myopic fan. i dont cheer for the house in blackjack and the only reason why i can still like the red sox despite their extravagance is because the yankees are much much worse.

NFL attendance and ratings are higher now than they have ever been. teams have now adjusted to the realities of the cap and i think this next decade you are going to see teams that draft well and are wise in free agency be able to retain their players and keep their advantage.

Its just not going to be as easy as it was in the past and i see nothing wrong with more of a challenge. it makes success that much sweeter.

There is no success anymore. A team will win the SB then dissappear for 4 years, rinse and repeat. The cap destroyed success along with dynasties. I can take solice in the fact that there are idiot owners like Little Danny, I never really worry about the skins much anymore, which is kinda sad.

Could you imagine if Jerry and Danny had unlimited money to spend on their teams??? Now that would be football worth watching.

 

[DallasEast]

i dont think so. if it wasnt for the fact that jones completely mismanaged the draft and contracts at the dawn of the cap era we wouldnt be so upset with things. The Patriots, Colts and Ravens have all been very very good for quite some time now. Saying that the Pats are not a dynasty is jsut ludicrous.

the major difference is we cannot overpay for backups and keep them from other teams like we could in the past nor can other teams. that makes those other teams significantly better but really only makes injuries more of a concern and hurts special teams for the teams losing their backups.

Our individual interpretations of the word 'dynasty' will always differ. I need to review the three teams' rosters you mentioned to determine which players were retained and which players were released. While I agree that a handful of players (or core players) were kept for each team, I doubt that the majority of players who initially enjoyed success with those teams stayed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no success anymore. A team will win the SB then dissappear for 4 years, rinse and repeat. The cap destroyed success along with dynasties. I can take solice in the fact that there are idiot owners like Little Danny, I never really worry about the skins much anymore, which is kinda sad.

Could you imagine if Jerry and Danny had unlimited money to spend on their teams??? Now that would be football worth watching.

the Colts, Ravens and Pats all say hello and that you are wrong.

 

[DallasEast]

the backups are going to leave but look at us and the guys weve resigned. if we so choose were still far enough under the cap that we could retain Newman, Romo, Adams and Jones should we choose to do so over the next season.

Thats fantastic. We just have to let guys like Shanle and Fowler go.

That's not how it's always going to work. And while you can use one or two seasons as a sampling, do you believe that it'll be a true representation of every single season?

 

[DallasEast]

the Colts, Ravens and Pats all say hello and that you are wrong.

Quick question. With the advent of enforced parity, why aren't we mentioning more than three teams here?

 

[PullMyFinger]

i dont think so. if it wasnt for the fact that jones completely mismanaged the draft and contracts at the dawn of the cap era we wouldnt be so upset with things. The Patriots, Colts and Ravens have all been very very good for quite some time now. Saying that the Pats are not a dynasty is jsut ludicrous.

the major difference is we cannot overpay for backups and keep them from other teams like we could in the past nor can other teams. that makes those other teams significantly better but really only makes injuries more of a concern and hurts special teams for the teams losing their backups.

You darn right I said it, and Ill say it again. "There are no dynasties in a watered down NFL." Its a joke when people call them a dynasty. Dynasties went to the way side when your beloved cap came into existance. The BILL'S teams that we beat in the SB would destroy the Pats.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Our individual interpretations of the word 'dynasty' will always differ. I need to review the three teams' rosters you mentioned to determine which players were retained and which players were released. While I agree that a handful of players (or core players) were kept for each team, I doubt that the majority of players who initially enjoyed success with those teams stayed.

now that is one thing that i believe that you have a point with the whole player identity thing. i just see us keeping all our guys and its really not an issue for me.

 

[DallasEast]

You darn right I said it, and Ill say it again. "There are no dynasties in a watered down NFL." Its a joke when people call them a dynasty. Dynasties went to the way side when your beloved cap came into existance. The BILL'S teams that we beat in the SB would destroy the Pats.

I agree 100%.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You darn right I said it, and Ill say it again. "There are no dynasties in a watered down NFL." Its a joke when people call them a dynasty. Dynasties went to the way side when your beloved cap came into existance. The BILL'S teams that we beat in the SB would destroy the Pats.

you have abslutely no evidence to that fact. its great to say that but comparing teams a decade apart is ludicrous. i would actually contend that with the size and speed increases that any team a decade down the line would annihilate their predecessors.

hyperbole and anecdotes aside, they won 3 superbowls in 4 years and were just in the AFC championship last year. Thats a dynasty.

 

[DallasEast]

now that is one thing that i believe that you have a point with the whole player identity thing. i just see us keeping all our guys and its really not an issue for me.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. In today's NFL, if you can retain a good core of players AND plug in a lot of moderately good backups, your team can win in the NFL. The great teams of the past (i.e. dynasty type teams) had a great core of players and very good crop of backups. The early 90's Cowboy teams practically had a great starting group on offense and defense and a very good second-string group behind them that could play for a lot of teams. You can't find that on ANY roster in today's NFL.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quick question. With the advent of enforced parity, why aren't we mentioning more than three teams here?

well thats kind of the point those are three temas that since 1999 those three teams have been very good and won superbowls. if the league was so watered down and teams were unable to stay on top this would not be possible.

 

[PullMyFinger]

You believe what you want. Next your gonna tell me you saw Bigfoot at the last Dallas game sitting in the box beside Jerry.


NE a dynasty......... :laugh2:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. In today's NFL, if you can retain a good core of players AND plug in a lot of moderately good backups, your team can win in the NFL. The great teams of the past (i.e. dynasty type teams) had a great core of players and very good crop of backups. The early 90's Cowboy teams practically had a great starting group on offense and defense and a very good second-string group behind them that could play for a lot of teams. You can't find that on ANY roster in today's NFL.

i understand that but I dont mind the fact that we cannot overpay for backups and screw over the small market teams. to do otherwise is to have the mindset of a greedy monopolist.

 

[DallasEast]

you have abslutely no evidence to that fact. its great to say that but comparing teams a decade apart is ludicrous. i would actually contend that with the size and speed increases that any team a decade down the line would annihilate their predecessors.

hyperbole and anecdotes aside, they won 3 superbowls in 4 years and were just in the AFC championship last year. Thats a dynasty.

While I would agree with the 'size and speed' argument in comparing two sets of teams 20 or more season apart, I totally disagree with the dismissal of the comparison of the 90's Bills and the 21st century Patriots. There is virtually no discrepancies in size or speed between both teams.