HawkShack.com

At the effective quarter pole, early season returns show that parity is alive and well in the NFL. Here in Houston, a team that finished last season with 14 loses in a row, has started this new season 3-1. Across the league, teams that were thought to be contenders are down (New Orleans 1-3), while thought to be also-rans are up (Cowboyz 3-1). When I hear competitive balance, I think redistribution of wealth. I prefer a meritocracy. Parity makes for sustaining fan interest, but is it good for the league in the long run?

All I know is that it's a b**** to bet on:)

Its early. Lots of people are riding AZ's jock at 3-0. If I member Wiz was 4-0 in 2012 before being fired at seasons end.If anything it seems like play has been wildly inconsistent by almost all the teams. I wonder if the changes in the CBA regarding practice coupled with the new rules regarding DBs are playing a role in some of the crazy results so far.

Lots of people are riding AZ's jock at 3-0.

Seems like they've been doing it with smoke and mirrors. Guess we'll see...

Yeah, AZ's running on Smoke and Mirrors... and a back-up QB. The starter is EXPECTING his job back this or next week. That will be interesting. I know Pete would keep whomever is better that week and our former Coach Holmgren would always give the job back to the Vet. I hated that. I just want it to go to the best. We'll see what AZ does. A lot of coaches wouldn't dare to what Pete is doing, until that SB ring went on his finger. Turned a lot of heads.

js

Long Time Fan wrote:At the effective quarter pole, early season returns show that parity is alive and well in the NFL. Here in Houston, a team that finished last season with 14 loses in a row, has started this new season 3-1. Across the league, teams that were thought to be contenders are down (New Orleans 1-3), while thought to be also-rans are up (Cowboyz 3-1). When I hear competitive balance, I think redistribution of wealth. I prefer a meritocracy. Parity makes for sustaining fan interest, but is it good for the league in the long run?

The one constant is that the Raiders are 0-4 and just fired their coach.

The answer to your question is yes. Fan interest is what's good for the league in the long run. I don't know how it couldn't be.

RiverDog wrote:The answer to your question is yes. Fan interest is what's good for the league in the long run. I don't know how it couldn't be.

Each season there is some degree of reshuffling of the deck; and yes this maintains fan interest. I grew up in a time of team dynasty sustainability. The Seahawks have finally clawed their way to the top of the NFL food chain and are now subject to the same vagaries; free agency, rule changes, scheduling disparities, that have been the bane of sustainability to every would-be dynasty over the last ten years. Part of me believes that the heyday periods of the Stealers, Cowboys, Raiders, were a better time in the NFL; giving fans a title contending team to either love or hate.

All the more reason to bask in the glory period of the Seahawks; this time will likely pass all too quickly before we know it.

All the more reason to bask in the glory period of the Seahawks; this time will likely pass all too quickly before we know it.

Yep. I remember reading a bunch of "dynasty" talk in 2005 back at the PI and we all know how that worked out.

I know this team is built much better for a long(er) haul, but the same general forces are in play, so yeah- enjoy it while we got it, however long that may turn out to be.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/nfl- ... yoff-odds/

Fascinating.

Funny, I don't remember any "dynasty" talk over at the P-I in 2005 or before, but, what I do remember was all of the talk about how much the "window of opportunity" is open or not. Most of us thought the window was still open after SB40 but we know now the window had already closed.

Funny, I don't remember any "dynasty" talk over at the P-I in 2005 or before

I'm probably remembering it as more prevalent than it actually was. There was *some* talk of it, though.

I remember after the Superbowl XXL debacle there were a lot of people saying the Hawks would be back the next year. I always thought it was whistling in the graveyard. The window got a lot smaller after Hutch left but it stayed open for 2 more years. Hawks were a play away from the conference title game a year later and had a 14 point lead on GB in 2007. The embarrassing collapse in that game was truly the day the Holmgren era died, never mind he collected another years salary.

This team has a different feel. I think they might be around a while.

Seahawks4Ever wrote:Funny, I don't remember any "dynasty" talk over at the P-I in 2005 or before, but, what I do remember was all of the talk about how much the "window of opportunity" is open or not. Most of us thought the window was still open after SB40 but we know now the window had already closed.

Don't remember the Dynasty talk either. But the belief that the window was still open was based on the completely reasonable assumption that Tim Ruskell wasn't going to take a flame thrower to the roster.

Ugh... I just went back and looked at his 5 years as a GM and it's even more depressing than I remember. Ruskell only managed to pull 5 players out of the draft who provided meaningful/quality starts for the Seahawks in his entire run as GM. 5!

kalibane wrote:Don't remember the Dynasty talk either. But the belief that the window was still open was based on the completely reasonable assumption that Tim Ruskell wasn't going to take a flame thrower to the roster.

Ugh... I just went back and looked at his 5 years as a GM and it's even more depressing than I remember. Ruskell only managed to pull 5 players out of the draft who provided meaningful/quality starts for the Seahawks in his entire run as GM. 5!

No one at the PI was talking dynasty. We were all talking about how long our window would remain open, and almost to a person, we all thought it would be a lot longer than it turned out.

Ruskell struck out worst in the first round. Lawrence Jackson, Kelly Jennings, Chris Spencer, the Branch trade, and Aaron Curry. You can't miss on that many top picks and not hurt your franchise. But to defend him a little, except for his last draft, he was always picking from the high 20's, and he swung a trade in his last year that Pete parlayed into Earl Thomas.

No one at the PI was talking dynasty.

Yes there were. I take it from the fact that no one else remembers it that it wasn't as prevalent as I thought, but I remember arguing it in at least one thread with a couple posters.

I only remember the discussions about the window closing, however that doesn't mean there weren't threads about a dynasty that I chose to not participate.

I find it interesting that the NFL won't consider a team in Las Vegas because of gambling, but I believe London has an extensive bookie system where you can bet on almost anything. Why the different attitude for London? I'll answer my own question - money.

NorthHawk wrote:I only remember the discussions about the window closing, however that doesn't mean there weren't threads about a dynasty that I chose to not participate.

I find it interesting that the NFL won't consider a team in Las Vegas because of gambling, but I believe London has an extensive bookie system where you can bet on almost anything. Why the different attitude for London? I'll answer my own question - money.

IMO gambling isn't the problem with Vegas. The problem is that it's a very small market, and it's a lot like Phoenix in that everyone is from somewhere else, so there's no regional loyalty. Nothing to gain by putting a franchise there.

London, on the other hand, offers a huge potential market. The only drawback to London is the travel.

No undefeated team after week five; further proof of parity. Drink up '72 Dolphins!