The Effect of Parity on Our Expectations

[Huddle]

It was late in the fourth quarter in Philly. The McNabb-less Eagles had us by the short hairs. They had the lead; they had the ball; they were moving the football; they had just made a first down on our end of the field. Then Jon Runyan saved our ass. He committed a personal foul against Joe Saleve'a that stopped his team's drive. But for Runyan's gaffe, it's a good bet that our regular season ends at 9-7.

Whether a team's record is 6-10 or 10-6 hardly matters in the NBA or MLB but, in the NFL, 16 games is the entire season. And, in recent years, NFL teams have been so evenly matched, and the games so closely contested, that it's often easy to pick out a single play (like the penalty on Runyan) and make a case that it was the difference in the game.

If the NFL brass had its way, every team would finish 8-8. And, when you think about it, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 is only a two-game swing from 8-8. Every team that finished in this range this past season, could easily swing in the opposite direction in 2006. As a sign of this trend, in recent years, most of the losers of the Super Bowl haven't made it back to the playoffs the following season.

I hope for another Super Bowl win every year but I try to keep my expectations in the realm of reason. Even without the uncertainty caused by impact of the labor negotiations on our roster, I have no idea what to expect from the Skins next season. 6-10, 10-6, or anything in between, would not surprise me.

The thought of Mark Brunell starting another season doesn't fill me with optimism. At this stage of his career, his game is too limited...too easily defended by most NFL teams.

The thought of starting rookie Jason Campbell doesn't excite me either. Elway, Farve, Aikman, Bradshaw...all threw more picks than TDs in their first couple of seasons. And, there's no guarantee that Campbell is anywhere near as good as that group.

I'll duck after saying this but I think Al Saunders will be an upgrade over Joe Gibbs in running the offense because he believes in being unpredictable. When you have overwhelming firepower, you can be predictable. When you don't, you'd better keep the other side uncertain about your plans.

How much can we expect from Saunders, though? We know that he had great success at Kansas City but we also know that he had a group of outstanding players in their prime years to coach. Does his scheme need talent like that to function well?

Greg Williams, I'm convinced, is a defensive genius. But can he put together another outstanding defensive squad with the talent he'll have? I hope so, but a dropoff wouldn't be too surprising unless we use the draft to help him (at the expense of the offense).

My guess is that most Redskins fans see the improvement in our regular season record, from 6-10 in 2004 to 10-6 last season, as an upward trend that will continue. Miami, Chicago, Tampa Bay, the Giants, Seattle...their teams' records all improved this year and their fans are thinking the same way...and some are going to be disappointed. The effect of parity is that the fortunes of most NFL teams can swing for better or worse on small differences between coaches, personnel, or just a change of luck.

I'm interested in other thoughts on this...pro or con.

[That Guy]

everyone gets up on teams too early. the media said gibbs would be an instant winner, and expected good things from lovie smith 2004 (the skins had almost 25 new players that year). this year it was the vikings and cards that were supposed to improve dramaticly. usually it takes an extra year after massive overhauls of your roster though. so i'd bet the vikes do much better next year (but a new untested coach and a possible change at QB might prevent that), and even though it didn't seem like it, the cards defense is probably going to be a lot better this year too. they were really young and rolle and berry were injured a lot, so the experience gained in 2005 should really help there.

saunders will be better than gibbs as far as playcalling is concerned. offensive playcalling and lack of DL pressure were our biggest weaknesses (also offensive depth at WR and this year at OL too). saunders is a terrible leader and someone i'd never want as the head coach of my team, but his knowledge of Xs an Os is top notch.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by That Guy

everyone gets up on teams too early. the media said gibbs would be an instant winner, and expected good things from lovie smith 2004 (the skins had almost 25 new players that year). this year it was the vikings and cards that were supposed to improve dramaticly. usually it takes an extra year after massive overhauls of your roster though. so i'd bet the vikes do much better next year (but a new untested coach and a possible change at QB might prevent that), and even though it didn't seem like it, the cards defense is probably going to be a lot better this year too. they were really young and rolle and berry were injured a lot, so the experience gained in 2005 should really help there.

saunders will be better than gibbs as far as playcalling is concerned. offensive playcalling and lack of DL pressure were our biggest weaknesses (also offensive depth at WR and this year at OL too). saunders is a terrible leader and someone i'd never want as the head coach of my team, but his knowledge of Xs an Os is top notch.

I'm not disagreeing with you on Saunders (I don't really have an opinion on it) but I always wonder what people have in mind when they speak of "leadership." Often, when I hear their explanations, it isn't what I have in mind when I think of that quality.

Last year, I would have said that a pass-rushing DE was our biggest need. I wasn't overly impressed when P. Daniel's had his big game against Dallas because it was done against Flozell Adam's backup. But Daniels' explanation for his late season surge in sacks was that he was being "used differently." I presumed that he meant that he was permitted to set up outside the tackle gap rather than playing inside in a stronger run-stopping position.

[RiggoRules]

Originally Posted by Huddle

If the NFL brass had its way, every team would finish 8-8. And, when you think about it, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 is only a two-game swing from 8-8. Every team that finished in this range this past season, could easily swing in the opposite direction in 2006. As a sign of this trend, in recent years, most of the losers of the Super Bowl haven't make it back to the playoffs the following season.

Huddle, getting every team to finish at .500 isn't the NFL's goal in pushing parity.

The goal is to avoid the having a league filled with a group of teams that are perennial losers and a group that is consistantly competitive -- like you have in baseball. A sport that is a shell of what it used to be.

The Bengals of all people made the playoffs last year. One of the beautiful parts of the game is the "any given Sunday" aspect.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

Huddle, getting every team to finish at .500 isn't the NFL's goal in pushing parity.

The goal is to avoid the having a league filled with a group of teams that are perennial losers and a group that is consistantly competitive -- like you have in baseball. A sport that is a shell of what it used to be.

The Bengals of all people made the playoffs last year. One of the beautiful parts of the game is the "any given Sunday" aspect.

I understand the purpose. I was expressing the ideal...8-8 for every team is perfection if parity is the goal.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I'm not disagreeing with you on Saunders (I don't really have an opinion on it) but I always wonder what people have in mind when they speak of "leadership." Often, when I hear their explanations, it isn't what I have in mind when I think of that quality.

listen to his interviews, he sounds like he's been dead for years. he speaks softly and in monotone and from all outside accounts, lacks skills in dealing with people and in motivation. He's one of those great coordinator, terrible head coaching types.

and i think a lot of what's hurt baseball is how slow the game has gotten... at one point (when my grand dad actually watched it), it didn't take 5 minutes between each pitch, and an entire game could be played in no time (we're talking 30-40's though).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Very thoughtful post Huddle. Good job.

I think I'll need to see what happens with the CBA, who we cut, who we draft, who we get in free agency, who gets injured in the preseason, etc. before I can hazard a guess as to how the team will fare in 2006.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Very thoughtful post Huddle. Good job.

I think I'll need to see what happens with the CBA, who we cut, who we draft, who we get in free agency, who gets injured in the preseason, etc. before I can hazard a guess as to how the team will fare in 2006.

Thanks for the compliment.

Campbell is my key. If he looks like the real deal, I'll feel a whole lot better about the team's direction.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Thanks for the compliment.

Campbell is my key. If he looks like the real deal, I'll feel a whole lot better about the team's direction.

Well-written, articulate, and thoughtful posts are always appreciated. It's a lot more enjoyable to read a clear and well-supported post, than a post that makes a controversial claim without any support or one that cannot be understood. Keep it up!

I too would feel a hell of a lot better if Campbell looks good. I still like Brunell, but I'd like to know that we have a young and capable backup if Brunell falters or is injured.

[onlydarksets]

I was under the impression that no new posts were allowed unless they discussed the CBA or restructuring Lavar's deal.

j/k - good post!

You hit on the key point why I follow football more closely than any sport - each and every game matters. In baseball, you could lose 16 games in a row and still make the playoffs. I don't know that the NFL is striving for 8-8 parity, though. I think they are striving more for the "any 5-11 team could be 11-5 the next year" parity. More importantly, I think they are trying to avoid any team being 14-2 every year. However, I get the impression they don't care too much about a team being 2-14 every year.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I was under the impression that no new posts were allowed unless they discussed the CBA or restructuring Lavar's deal.

j/k - good post!

You hit on the key point why I follow football more closely than any sport - each and every game matters. In baseball, you could lose 16 games in a row and still make the playoffs. I don't know that the NFL is striving for 8-8 parity, though. I think they are striving more for the "any 5-11 team could be 11-5 the next year" parity. More importantly, I think they are trying to avoid any team being 14-2 every year. However, I get the impression they don't care too much about a team being 2-14 every year.

Thank you for the compliment on the post.

Whether the NFL is striving for it or not, the 5-11 to 11-5 swing is very possible now...as is the 11-5 to 5-11 swing.

Santana started every game for us this past season. Tiki was healthy for the Giants for most of the year. McNabb went down. When the roster talent is spread so thinly over 32 teams, a serious injury to one key player can determine whether you make the playoffs or not.