So I was watching a rerun of the 2017 Eagles playoff run the other night, and it really got me thinking. That team didn’t have a ton of household names—especially after Wentz went down—but they just clicked. Everyone played their part, and it all worked. Do you think that kind of complete-team approach is more valuable now than building around one or two superstars? Or are we still in an era where having a Mahomes or a McCaffrey is the only real path to success?
top of page
bottom of page
Just dropped into this thread while grabbing a coffee. I don’t follow NFL news super closely, but I’ve always been fascinated by how team dynamics work in pro sports. Whether it’s football, basketball, or even esports, you see similar debates about “superteams” vs. well-built squads with solid chemistry. Always cool to read different takes on it. Carry on!
Yeah, that Eagles run is a perfect example of team depth beating star power. I’ve always believed that while stars help sell tickets, it’s the “glue guys” and coaching that win championships. There’s actually a solid write-up on this idea over at https://walterfootball.com/superteams.php. It breaks down how modern analytics are shifting the NFL toward well-rounded rosters instead of top-heavy ones. I think teams that build smart and deep—like the Niners or Ravens—tend to go further in the long run, even if they don’t always have the biggest names at every position.