Which do you prefer more. The unpredictability of the current nfl where teams can go from one of the worst teams in the league to one of the best in just a season or two and vice versa. Or the nfl prior to the salary cap era where you could pretty much count on the same exact teams being at the top virtually every year and the only question was which of that group was going to stand out the most in that given season?
I can definitely see the argument for the unpredictability of the current nfl because it allows every team and every fan base to have a chance almost every season. But I am a fan of having greatness in team sports and teams were truly great back then where as in this day and age in order to allow every team to have a chance things are a lot more averaged out than they were before and in my mind most of the great teams of the '60's, '70's, 80's, and 90's would just run circles around teams of today.
Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictability?
-
JuggernautJ
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:14 pm
- Location: NinerLand, Ca.
Re: Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictabili
My experience has been that many fans love the current situation with parity's "unpredictable" seasons and the ability of any (their) team to quickly become relevant.
Although we shouldn't neglect the fact that Belichick and the Patriots seem to have figured out how to be "predictably" good (great) during the era of unpredictability.
But those of us interested in the history of the game love to talk about the teams that were "predictably" great, season after season. When we think of (for example) the 1950's we recall the greatness of the Browns and Lions (early) and the Giants and Colts (later). But how many people really remember the Steelers teams of the that era?
I think those who study history (unless they have a specialty that motivates them) tend to look at the big events (great teams) of the past. That's why (imho) we tend to focus on the wars and battles of history as opposed to other significant events.
Most folks know a lot more about World War II (the 1970's Steelers) than they do about the Treaty of Ghent (the 1960's Philadelphia Eagles)(for example).
Although we shouldn't neglect the fact that Belichick and the Patriots seem to have figured out how to be "predictably" good (great) during the era of unpredictability.
But those of us interested in the history of the game love to talk about the teams that were "predictably" great, season after season. When we think of (for example) the 1950's we recall the greatness of the Browns and Lions (early) and the Giants and Colts (later). But how many people really remember the Steelers teams of the that era?
I think those who study history (unless they have a specialty that motivates them) tend to look at the big events (great teams) of the past. That's why (imho) we tend to focus on the wars and battles of history as opposed to other significant events.
Most folks know a lot more about World War II (the 1970's Steelers) than they do about the Treaty of Ghent (the 1960's Philadelphia Eagles)(for example).
-
74_75_78_79_
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm
Re: Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictabili
Mostly predictability, but with just a little touch - every now and then - of a surprise/a little ascent like the '72 Packers and '86 Chiefs in respective decades in which it seemed like the same teams, year-after-year, were the top contenders. Now 1980...there was plenty of 'ascent' with Eagles winning the NFC East instead of Dallas and Falcons winning NFC West instead of Rams as well as Buffalo and Cleveland winning their divisions!
Too many wild-cards making it to or even winning SBs as of late along with weak division-winners, plenty of them taking advantage of that home-game vs a team with a much better record in the 1st Rd. I said it numerous times already - make it three-divisions-per-conference and it'll help reduce that very thing (so the schedule-makers will have to "roll-up-their-sleeves" some more in that 6-5-5 format). I don't mind if it happens once in a while; a 9-7 underdog story making it to the CC or even better, but not as often. Crazed free-agency is also the culprit of this. Don't mind the once-in-blue-moon "last-to-first" story, but not nearly as often as has been.
I miss that '70s Mia/Pit/Oak/Dal/Min/Rams, '80s Giants/Redskins/Bears/SF/Mia/Broncos, early-'90s Dallas/SF/Buf practically every year stuff!
Too many wild-cards making it to or even winning SBs as of late along with weak division-winners, plenty of them taking advantage of that home-game vs a team with a much better record in the 1st Rd. I said it numerous times already - make it three-divisions-per-conference and it'll help reduce that very thing (so the schedule-makers will have to "roll-up-their-sleeves" some more in that 6-5-5 format). I don't mind if it happens once in a while; a 9-7 underdog story making it to the CC or even better, but not as often. Crazed free-agency is also the culprit of this. Don't mind the once-in-blue-moon "last-to-first" story, but not nearly as often as has been.
I miss that '70s Mia/Pit/Oak/Dal/Min/Rams, '80s Giants/Redskins/Bears/SF/Mia/Broncos, early-'90s Dallas/SF/Buf practically every year stuff!
Re: Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictabili
I stopped watching the NBA.
Re: Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictabili
I like competition. Don't like crapshoots.
In terms of the past, great teams were actually great and they were built but it didn't last forever and it was nowhere near the 'boring' that people claim the past was.
Now, it's a bunch of average or worse teams and whoever is standing at the end gets labeled great and champion but rarely are they great and they rarely match up -historically- as any sort of significant champion.
There's other issues that play into that; league structure, people not understanding what "playoffs" are for, etc. side note: here's an obligatory mention of my hatred for wild cards.
A big difference is societal, at least what I've found but couldn't be different in other areas of the country. When someone was better than 'you' the old way was to work-upwards; work harder, make yourself better, practice more and harder and in terms of sport better organize your organization, get better coaches, get better players and so on with the end goal being try to catch those at the top and ultimately try to surpass them. Now the attitude is wanting anyone good at something to be brought down to 'your' level so it's -allegedly- 'fair'. It's really backwards but that's where we're at. Don't want greatness, want perceived fairness. While accepting (via blatant ignorance) that the latter leads to a horrible quality product. Applied to the NFL, instead of teams continually pushing each other to be better we have an artificial system that attempts to make sure no one is ever "too good".
One way is better for those that like competition. The other is better for those that like mindless entertainment. Everyone can choose for themselves what interests them but personally, sport is competition to me. At least it should be.
In terms of the past, great teams were actually great and they were built but it didn't last forever and it was nowhere near the 'boring' that people claim the past was.
Now, it's a bunch of average or worse teams and whoever is standing at the end gets labeled great and champion but rarely are they great and they rarely match up -historically- as any sort of significant champion.
There's other issues that play into that; league structure, people not understanding what "playoffs" are for, etc. side note: here's an obligatory mention of my hatred for wild cards.
A big difference is societal, at least what I've found but couldn't be different in other areas of the country. When someone was better than 'you' the old way was to work-upwards; work harder, make yourself better, practice more and harder and in terms of sport better organize your organization, get better coaches, get better players and so on with the end goal being try to catch those at the top and ultimately try to surpass them. Now the attitude is wanting anyone good at something to be brought down to 'your' level so it's -allegedly- 'fair'. It's really backwards but that's where we're at. Don't want greatness, want perceived fairness. While accepting (via blatant ignorance) that the latter leads to a horrible quality product. Applied to the NFL, instead of teams continually pushing each other to be better we have an artificial system that attempts to make sure no one is ever "too good".
One way is better for those that like competition. The other is better for those that like mindless entertainment. Everyone can choose for themselves what interests them but personally, sport is competition to me. At least it should be.
Re: Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictabili
I don't see all this as extreme as you and others have made it out to be. I don't think we are seeing teams be pathetic, then 14-2 out of nowhere and then back down to laughingstock status in a 3-year span. Nor have we seen anything close to a season where all 32 teams are between 7-9 and 9-7. What we have seen are some questionable league champions. We have seen 10-6 and 9-7 teams win the league. One was even scored fewer regular season points than it allowed in the regular season.lastcat3 wrote:Which do you prefer more. The unpredictability of the current nfl where teams can go from one of the worst teams in the league to one of the best in just a season or two and vice versa. Or the nfl prior to the salary cap era where you could pretty much count on the same exact teams being at the top virtually every year and the only question was which of that group was going to stand out the most in that given season?
I can definitely see the argument for the unpredictability of the current nfl because it allows every team and every fan base to have a chance almost every season. But I am a fan of having greatness in team sports and teams were truly great back then where as in this day and age in order to allow every team to have a chance things are a lot more averaged out than they were before and in my mind most of the great teams of the '60's, '70's, 80's, and 90's would just run circles around teams of today.
We still see teams build and then blossom and then begin to unravel. The Seahawks of 2011-17 are one such example. Maybe they will rebound, maybe they will not, but this run of theirs is similar to stuff that occurred from 1920 to the early 1990s or the 2000s (whenever it is specifically when you propose things went south; from the context clues, I believe you think it is one of those two decades).
I made predictions in another thread but didn't really write much. In the AFC, I have the Patriots winning the conference. I also see the Chiefs as having a chance. I don't like the Steelers as much and don't even have them winning their division but I can at least envision them getting to the Super Bowl. If they get there, then they could win it.
In the NFC, I think the Eagles, Vikings, Packers, Saints, Falcons, Panthers and Rams can win their conference. I've just listed ten teams! I'll include the Steelers because Tom Brady and Pat Mahomes could get injured. (The team I picked to win the division over the Steelers does not win playoff games. I won't pick Marvin Lewis and the Bengals to win a playoff game until maybe after they actually already win one).
In the NBA, I correctly predicted the NBA Finals for three consecutive seasons and could not make a realistic case for any other teams. Is that better or is it better when you could envision almost a third of the league winning the championship before the season starts?
Re: Which do you prefer more. Unprectability or predictabili
I have found the last three #1 seeds in the NFC to be interesting.
2015 Panthers went 15-1 and made it to the SB. In 2016 they finished in last place in the NFC South. 2017 were 11-5 WC team.
In 2015 the Cowboys had the worst record in the NFC. In 2016 they were the #1 seed in the NFC. 2017 a 9-7 average non-playoff team.
In 2016 the Eagles finished last in the NFC East. In 2017 they're the #1 seed in the NFC and of course, won the Super Bowl.
2015 Panthers went 15-1 and made it to the SB. In 2016 they finished in last place in the NFC South. 2017 were 11-5 WC team.
In 2015 the Cowboys had the worst record in the NFC. In 2016 they were the #1 seed in the NFC. 2017 a 9-7 average non-playoff team.
In 2016 the Eagles finished last in the NFC East. In 2017 they're the #1 seed in the NFC and of course, won the Super Bowl.