Replies

Well what parity does is spread out the talent. What folks forget about those dominant teams was how much the rest of the league just kind of stank. There’s a problem these days with bad divisions, but they only stay bad for a couple of seasons. Back in the hallowed dynasty days whole divisions stank for a decade or longer. At least now things cycle around, teams float up. It’s now actually a challenge to keep a team bad for more than 5 seasons (a challenge sadly half a dozen owners prove to be up to).

I’m really hoping the Cleveland moneyball experiment works. We know it can work since that’s basically how the Pats are built, the problem is so far nobody is trying to copy that part of the Pats. If a second team can at least get good by actually properly valuing players we might see the bottom of the league lift. Heck even Jerry Jones seems to have figured out high cost free agents aren’t a good plan under a hard cap, took him 20 years but if Jones can learn...

Parity doesn't just spread out the talent -- it dilutes it and dilutes the chemistry. Put together a solid offensive line and add a good tailback and blocking fullback, and you've got a running game that any coach would love to have. Send those seven players to seven different teams the next season because you can't fit them all under your salary cap, and there won't be a single one of them who is as good a player next year as he was this year. That makes for some pretty bad football.

It seems that all of those great NFL teams had one thing in common: they all grew from a winning combination of a great GM and/or player personnel director and a great head coach. Bobby Beathard and Joe Gibbs in Washington, Tex Schramm and Tom Landry in Dallas, George Young and Bill Parcells with the Giants, John McVay and Bill Walsh in San Francisco, Dick Haley and Chuck Noll in Pittsburgh, etc. That's because the key to success in the NFL back then was building a roster over time and then riding it for as long as possible.