Is it too difficult to repeat as champs?

[Clayton]

I just saw a stat on ESPN that said that the defending Super Bowl champ has yet to win a playoff game the following year since 2005. Is the league better without a 'great' team having a target on its back in the playoffs?

Have we gone too far with weighted scheduling? First place teams having to play other first place teams can get brutal. Weighted schedules dont really help bad teams because it makes teams who should be 4-12 getting everyone fired go 7-9 and have their coach stay on another year. Or is the league better off with the weighted schedules because it allows for more marquee matchups like seeing Peyton and Brady play every year in the regular season?

 

[RobToxin]

Not every time is the best team winning the Super Bowl. Take, for instance, the Giants a few years ago. They were 9-7 and had to beat the Cowboys on the last week of the season to even make the playoffs.

In the NFL playoffs, any team can win it. There's no best-of....

And we all know the golden rule in football about any given Sunday...

More than anything, parity and any given Sunday is the reason you don't see a dynasty form in the NFL like you do in other sports.

 

[Clayton]

More than anything, parity and any given Sunday is the reason you don't see a dynasty form in the NFL like you do in other sports.

Well, yeah. But parity happens more in single elimination playoffs. The Heat have lost quite a few game 1s the past few years.

I'm just wondering if having 1st place teams always play other 1st place teams and 4th place teams always playing other 4th place teams is really all that great for the sport. We already have enough parity checks (notably the draft) and I think the difference in schedule strength is very notable and I dont think having bad teams play other bad teams helps the truly bad teams, either.

 

[RobToxin]

Well, yeah. But parity happens more in single elimination playoffs. The Heat have lost quite a few game 1s the past few years.

I'm just wondering if having 1st place teams always play other 1st place teams and 4th place teams always playing other 4th place teams is really all that great for the sport. We already have enough parity checks (notably the draft) and I think the difference in schedule strength is very notable and I dont think having bad teams play other bad teams helps the truly bad teams, either.

I don't think that matters as much as people think. A first place team in 2012 can be a 2-14 team in 2013. It just happened and I am painfully aware of this moreso than anyone.

Free agency, salary caps, roster turnover, injuries, all change the strength and weaknesses of teams. The Redskins were a first place team just like the Texans last year and yet were almost a bye week for their opponents just like the Texans.

Look at the Colts a couple years ago. 2-14 with a last place schedule but way better than a last place team. Two years later, they win the division again.

Last place last year doesn't mean last place this year.

Same with first place.

 

[TheRedPlectrum]

I think the weighted schedule is good how it is. In most cases, parity is good.

 

[Clayton]

I don't think that matters as much as people think. A first place team in 2012 can be a 2-14 team in 2013. It just happened and I am painfully aware of this moreso than anyone.

Free agency, salary caps, roster turnover, injuries, all change the strength and weaknesses of teams. The Redskins were a first place team just like the Texans last year and yet were almost a bye week for their opponents just like the Texans.

Look at the Colts a couple years ago. 2-14 with a last place schedule but way better than a last place team. Two years later, they win the division again.

Last place last year doesn't mean last place this year.

Same with first place.

Teams like the Texans and Colts fell on bad luck. Teams like the Browns, Bills, Titans, etc, can beat up bad luck teams and get slightly inflated records but dont actually have good teams and get set back by not having a top 3 pick that can get them an elite QB or a marquee deal (although the Browns should get out of this cycle)

Meanwhile, on the other end, we have no scary returning champions in the Super Bowl. No team that people love to root against or root for because they are known for being very good. Parity is definitely a good thing. Its just that every alteration has consequences and we have to decide what form of parity is the best. Id like to see the weighted schedule go. Its a minor thing that could help a lot.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Very difficult for basically one reason...FA...sometimes it's a bloated payroll teams are trying to trim after climbing the mountain (Ravens)... Other teams, it's players just trying to capitalize on a short window for a big payday. Very difficult to keep all the vital pieces together after a SB win.

Secondly is mentally adjusting to being the hunted EVERY week.

 

[Clayton]

Very difficult for basically one reason...FA...sometimes it's a bloated payroll teams are trying to trim after climbing the mountain (Ravens)... Other teams, it's players just trying to capitalize on a short window for a big payday. Very difficult to keep all the vital pieces together after a SB win.

Yeah, and I think thats a good thing. The only real bad part is that a lot of great modern players will demand too much money, won't surround themselves with the same talent great players from previous generations had, will have less postseason success than great players from the past and will ultimately be underrated once the HOF and Greatest RB and Greatest QB lists come rolling around.

But for the game as a whole, FA is a really good thing

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Yeah, and I think thats a good thing. The only real bad part is that a lot of great modern players will demand too much money, won't surround themselves with the same talent great players from previous generations had, will have less postseason success than great players from the past and will ultimately be underrated once the HOF and Greatest RB and Greatest QB lists come rolling around.

But for the game as a whole, FA is a really good thing

Yea...it's rare for truly great players to move in their primes (P. Manning, Faulk), but you're right about a lot of very good players. I think as a player, once you have a ring and you're still young enough to get another contract, it become less about team and more about you...for the modern day player, I get that.

Teams have 2 choices...reward the championship players with long term deals they will likely not be able to play out and face the music when it comes because it will be coming...Steelers.

Or...win and cut bait with some pretty good players with thread on the tires (Ravens & Patriots)

Either way, it's tough to stay at the top for long.

IMO FA is great for a handful of players, for others that are leaving systems they performed well n for greener pastures...I'm not sure they get to see all of the money.

 

[gowazzu02]

another thing to note is that by winning the superbowl you play 3 or 4 more games then everyone else. Football is a rough game on your body thats alot of extra hits they take.

 

[CalamityX11]

While it be nice to see a repeat or someone trying for it, god knows you'll see teams that were on the cusp make it over n over only to see the same result...

I like it how it is... it's truly any given sunday and shows that any team can beat any team with proper training, skillsets, coaching and gameplan/preparations... its a sport where you can't take off any game.

why do we want to see the Denver broncos play the jags/browns/Texans/raiders(if outside division)?? they were killers last yr and should be matched up against their fellow tier opponents...

then if there is a team or few that constantly win the division or make a run at the playoffs shows how good or great they are as a team for consistently performing against various obstacles.

 

[seattlefan75]

well after you win a super bowl they stack your schedule next season with good teams just look at ours no wonder its so damn hard to repeat and the fact that they didnt want to give us any home games on prime time because we blow out teams and thats bad for television ratings is bullshit...

but there used to be a trend of super bowl losers not making it to the playoffs the following season after the loss i remember when we lost to the steelers in 05 and we made it to the playoffs the following season.

 

[NinerSickness]

It's really hard to repeat. Nobody's done it since the Pats in 10 years ago. But Seattle is easily good enough to do it.

 

[RobToxin]

well after you win a super bowl they stack your schedule next season with good teams just look at ours no wonder its so damn hard to repeat and the fact that they didnt want to give us any home games on prime time because we blow out teams and thats bad for television ratings is bullshit...

but there used to be a trend of super bowl losers not making it to the playoffs the following season after the loss i remember when we lost to the steelers in 05 and we made it to the playoffs the following season.

And, ironically, it was the Steelers who missed the playoffs that year.

 

[RoboticDreams]

I hate to say it but Seattle is good enough to do it if they can get past the Niners. Fuck Seattle. Just sayin'.

 

[fearthepelicans]

The "first place schedule" is overblown. It determines only 2 games.

 

[Clayton]

The "first place schedule" is overblown. It determines only 2 games.

Of course. But 2 games isn't really 2 games. One game can swing a whole season. It can certainly affect seeding.

You have to think that if Seattle is going to lose, its going to be because they take too many lumps in the regular season and get knocked down to the wild card. Seattle @ New Orleans is a different matchup than New Orleans @ Seattle.

 

[Uhsplit]

I hate to say it but Seattle is good enough to do it if they can get past the Niners. Fuck Seattle. Just sayin'.

I'm with ya RD, and fuck the Santa Clara 49ers.

 

[sonnyblack65]

I can see SF vs.Den/NE hopefully NE

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Seattle's one of the few teams in recent years that can do it because they didn't barely get in the playoffs and get hot during it (like Giants in recent years, or the Steelers when they knocked off Seattle), they took their seed by storm.

In addition, their roster is mostly returning and they get Percy Harvin back along with Richardson which is significantly better than Golden Tate and whoever else they lost. The other big factor is their roster is VERY young which helps you battle injuries and stay athletic for most of the game. Lastly, Seattle's philosophy is competition and that carries into games. Seattle players are by nature extremely competitive workhorses.

Point being, even if Seattle doesn't repeat, there's a good chance they can still win in the next 2-3 years to come.