What's new
By:

NFL 2015 Season Discussion Thread

NAOS said:
then why did you mention contracts?

btw, I tend to agree with you, but I've never done that comparison or read an article about it.
Click to expand...

Well in the NBA if you sign a player to a bad deal, it's fully guaranteed.

In the NFL if you sign a player, they are all partially guaranteed to some degree, so escaping toxic deals is much easier.


In the NBA a bad contract can really handicap your team's ability to turn around a franchise and contend. How much better would the Jazz have been if we could have cut AK and recouped some money to sign a quality starting quality wing?
 
King Cy said:
Well in the NBA if you sign a player to a bad deal, it's fully guaranteed.

In the NFL if you sign a player, they are all partially guaranteed to some degree, so escaping toxic deals is much easier.


In the NBA a bad contract can really handicap your team's ability to turn around a franchise and contend. How much better would the Jazz have been if we could have cut AK and recouped some money to sign a quality starting quality wing?
Click to expand...

gotcha. But I don't think that's a direct cause of more parity.

You could argue that AK's contract was good for league parity, since the jazz had recently been dominant.
 
Yeah, but if parity is different teams being able to compete at equal levels, then limiting a teams ability to operate from a managerial level should limit parity since it then relies more heavily on the ability of the players to influence outcomes (and puts more emphasis on FO errors). In the NFL managers can have a bigger impact with (or at least more impacts) with cutting/signing to effect the ability of their team.

Does the Jazz signing AK increase parity for other teams? Or does it create a bad precedent for other contracts, so more teams get locked into mediocrity while the few elite teams who have stars (who are impossible to overpay) succeed?
 
King Cy said:
Yeah, but if parity is different teams being able to compete at equal levels, then limiting a teams ability to operate from a managerial level should limit parity since it then relies more heavily on the ability of the players to influence outcomes (and puts more emphasis on FO errors). In the NFL managers can have a bigger impact with (or at least more impacts) with cutting/signing to effect the ability of their team.

Does the Jazz signing AK increase parity for other teams? Or does it create a bad precedent for other contracts, so more teams get locked into mediocrity while the few elite teams who have stars (who are impossible to overpay) succeed?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're using good reasoning. Just because the turnover in the NFL happens at a faster rate, that doesn't mean that the odds of parity are increased. Better-than-average teams will sign better contracts in either situation. Just because a team is able to reboot faster, doesn't mean it will. In either situation, if a bad team signs bad contracts, then they'll continue to be bad. Etc.
 
NAOS said:
I don't think you're using good reasoning. Just because the turnover in the NFL happens at a faster rate, that doesn't mean that the odds of parity are increased. Better-than-average teams will sign better contracts in either situation. Just because a team is able to reboot faster, doesn't mean it will. In either situation, if a bad team signs bad contracts, then they'll continue to be bad. Etc.
Click to expand...

Well my reasoning was never that this was the only, or even the main reason behind parity. I just think it's a factor that helps increase it.
 
King Cy said:
Well my reasoning was never that this was the only, or even the main reason behind parity. I just think it's a factor that helps increase it.
Click to expand...

and I have an open mind about it. But, you've failed to convince me. Anything you've posted in the way of a specific example is just as easily used as evidence in the opposite argument.
 
when I said I "tend to agree with you" re: contracts, I thought you were referring to the free-agency era of the NFL. I've always thought that helped parity, but I haven't seen it thoroughly studied. I'm sure it has been.

These kind of arguments require statistical support, in my opinion. Your rationale has further convinced me of that necessity.
 
Since 1995, the NFL has had 13 franchises win a Super Bowl.

The NBA has had 9 franchises win a title.

MLB has had 10 franchises win a World Series.

So, I was wrong. NFL has had the most parody.

Good for the NFL.
 
green said:
Since 1995, the NFL has had 13 franchises win a Super Bowl.

The NBA has had 9 franchises win a title.

MLB has had 10 franchises win a World Series.

So, I was wrong. NFL has had the most parody.

Good for the NFL.
Click to expand...

*parity

IB4 Colton
 
Well, my Falcons won again, to go to 6-1.....but played so poorly that they will probably drop 3 spots in the "Power Rankings" this week! How did your team do?
 
This is the first time in NFL history that 5 teams have gone 6-0. Pats, Packers, Panthers, Bengals and Broncos.

Not week it will be whittled down to at least 4 as it is Packers @ Broncos.

Unless the Broncos O gets it's act together over this bye week it is going to be a rough game.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp2Y43hWRCo

So.. did the Vikings get the steal of the draft in the 5th round or what?? Look at how crisp the route is run on the TD... LOL
 
I'm more surprised by this Patriots team than any other Patriots team in the past decade. I never thought the defense would be this reliable. Nor did I think the offense would put up this many points. If this team follows the usual Belichick pattern (that is, they get better as the season progresses), then Tom's ring for the thumb could be coming soon.
 
NAOS said:
I'm more surprised by this Patriots team than any other Patriots team in the past decade. I never thought the defense would be this reliable. Nor did I think the offense would put up this many points. If this team follows the usual Belichick pattern (that is, they get better as the season progresses), then Tom's ring for the thumb could be coming soon.
Click to expand...

This. As long as Brady wants to play, the Pats will make the playoffs. 10 more years? After that thumb comes the other hand....
 
Minnesota Vikings rookie linebacker Eric Kendricks has been named the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Month for October. In 3 games this month, Kendricks had 20 tackles, 4 sacks, 5 tackles for loss and 5 quarterback hits. His 4 sacks tied for fifth in the league and first among all rookies.

He's an inside linebacker too, Only Clay Matthews has more sacks as an ILB



Looks like another epic draft class for Spielman, It's gonna pay dividends in the coming years, he deserves a raise just on the strength of these drafts... We easily have one of the best defenses in the league, and no one thought so pre-season, pundits are becoming convinced in droves tho

Diggs in the 5th round was the steal of the draft.

1st round pick Trae Waynes hasn't seen the field much, he's gonna be ok.

2nd round Kendricks is the best inside backer we've had in a long time.

3rd round Danielle Hunter is a monster from LSU, he's much further along than people thought.

4th rd T.J. Clemmings is the starting RT due to injury, not doing anything special, he's been passable though, I guess.

Mycole Pruitt is an interesting FB/TE type, he's only 6'2" but can really do a bunch of stuff.
 
PG_AB said:
It's the Year of the Tank in the NFL huh?? 19 teams under .500 right now
Click to expand...


...and my Falcons will be playing 14 of them by the end of the season! Only winning team we play will be the Panthers and its a home and home series, which means we should split with them and make the playoffs with a 13-3 record, maybe as a "wild card?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top