11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomThe AFC has won 7 of the last 10 Pro Bowls (though I admit this doesn't mean too much).
what is it about the AFC that makes everyone think the AFC is better than the NFC?
An AFC team has won 7 of the last 9 Superbowls, including the last 3 straight.
total AFC teams record against NFC teams
for 2006: 40-24 (.625)
for 2005: 34-30 (.531)
for 2004: 44-20 (.688)
for 2003: 34-30 (.531)
for 2002: 34-26 (.567)
for 2001: 30-30 (.500)
This year and also 2004, the AFC really dominated.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by telerionbut to me the nfc has the better teams, do you think that they also have horrible teams that are just bringing them down?
The AFC has won 7 of the last 10 Pro Bowls (though I admit this doesn't mean too much).
An AFC team has won 7 of the last 9 Superbowls, including the last 3 straight.
total AFC teams record against NFC teams
for 2006: 40-24 (.625)
for 2005: 34-30 (.531)
for 2004: 44-20 (.688)
for 2003: 34-30 (.531)
for 2002: 34-26 (.567)
for 2001: 30-30 (.500)
This year and also 2004, the AFC really dominated.
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI don't think so. At least not this year.
but to me the nfc has the better teams, do you think that they also have horrible teams that are just bringing them down?
Every team from the NFC played 4 AFC opponents this year. The only NFC team with a winning record in those encounters was Dallas at 3-1. The NFC playoff teams (not including Dallas) had the following records in interconference play:
Bears (2-2)
Saints (1-3)
Eagles (1-3)
Seahawks (2-2)
Giants (1-3)
Note: Only Arizona and Minn went 0-4.
Take a look at the AFC playoff teams against NFC counterparts
Chargers (4-0)
Ravens (3-1)
Colts (3-1)
Patriots (4-0)
Jets (3-1)
Chiefs (4-0)
Note: Only Houston went 0-4.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomThe NFC teams suck, they are mediocre at best! Ask any sports critic/analyst and they will agree! The only good teams in the NFC this year were the Bears and the Saints! Whereas the AFC had the Chargers, Colts, Ravens, Patriots, Jets, Chiefs, and I'm going to name some other teams that really turned their seasons around, Titans, Bills, Steelers, Jaguars, and the Broncos were good also but they fell apart at the end of the year! Anyways point being, AFC is alot better and alot tougher to play in!
but to me the nfc has the better teams, do you think that they also have horrible teams that are just bringing them down?
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by JohnLennonForeverThe NFC really is hurt by the designated hitter rule.
The NFC teams suck, they are mediocre at best! Ask any sports critic/analyst and they will agree! The only good teams in the NFC this year were the Bears and the Saints! Whereas the AFC had the Chargers, Colts, Ravens, Patriots, Jets, Chiefs, and I'm going to name some other teams that really turned their seasons around, Titans, Bills, Steelers, Ja ...[text shortened]... rt at the end of the year! Anyways point being, AFC is alot better and alot tougher to play in!
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, the designated hitter is an advantage to the AL teams as their pitcher never has to bat, but it is a disadvantage when it comes to the World Series because these pitchers who never bat are even more of a liability when they play in NL parks.
The NFC really is hurt by the designated hitter rule.
However, the balance of power between the NFC and the AFC is constantly swinging. Currently the AFC has the better teams across the board as they did in the '70s. Through the '80s and '90s the NFC was far superior.
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by JohnLennonForeverAgain look at the Bears and Saints record vs. AFC teams. They combined for a 37.5 winning percentage.
The NFC teams suck, they are mediocre at best! Ask any sports critic/analyst and they will agree! The only good teams in the NFC this year were the Bears and the Saints! Whereas the AFC had the Chargers, Colts, Ravens, Patriots, Jets, Chiefs, and I'm going to name some other teams that really turned their seasons around, Titans, Bills, Steelers, Ja ...[text shortened]... rt at the end of the year! Anyways point being, AFC is alot better and alot tougher to play in!
While on average the AFC does better than the NFC right now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the NFC sucks and the AFC rocks. I'll point out as I have in other places that the ailing Seahawks nearly beat the media-darling Chargers just three weeks ago. If not for a bonehead play by SS Michael Boulware in the last 30 secs, Seattle would have had that game. It wouldn't have been a fluke either. They played even with the Chargers all game and kept LT out of the endzone. He would have had very poor total yards but for one long burst.
Right now Seattle is not the best team in the NFC. In fact, it could well be the weakest team remaining in the NFC race. So while I think the smart money is on an AFC team to win (probably either NE, SD, or BA) The NFC still has a very good shot at it (especially if the Eagles or Saints win the conference; a healthy Seattle or a Grossman-less Bears might do it too.).
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by CliffLandinSorry: wrong thread!
Well, the designated hitter is an advantage to the AL teams as their pitcher never has to bat, but it is a disadvantage when it comes to the World Series because these pitchers who never bat are even more of a liability when they play in NL parks.
However, the balance of power between the NFC and the AFC is constantly swinging. Currently the AFC has t ...[text shortened]... across the board as they did in the '70s. Through the '80s and '90s the NFC was far superior.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by telerionBut look at the records of the NFC teams compared to the AFC teams, the Giants who were 8-8 go to the playoffs while the Titans and Steelers who were 8-8 do not? If the Titans or Steelers would have been in the NFC they'd have gone to the playoffs easily! I mean even the Packers had a shot at the playoffs in the last game and they totally sucked! I don't think the AFC rocks by any stretch but I think they are alot stronger than the NFC!
Again look at the Bears and Saints record vs. AFC teams. They combined for a 37.5 winning percentage.
While on average the AFC does better than the NFC right now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the NFC sucks and the AFC rocks. I'll point out as I have in other places that the ailing Seahawks nearly beat the media-darling Chargers just three week ...[text shortened]... s or Saints win the conference; a healthy Seattle or a Grossman-less Bears might do it too.).
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by JohnLennonForeverDude that's been my point in this whole thread. On average the AFC is stronger than the NFC. This really becomes apparent when you look at middle of the road teams in the conferences. The mediocre AFC teams seem significantly stronger than middle of the road NFC teams.
But look at the records of the NFC teams compared to the AFC teams, the Giants who were 8-8 go to the playoffs while the Titans and Steelers who were 8-8 do not? If the Titans or Steelers would have been in the NFC they'd have gone to the playoffs easily! I mean even the Packers had a shot at the playoffs in the last game and they totally sucked! I don't think the AFC rocks by any stretch but I think they are alot stronger than the NFC!
My contention with your post was on two points.
1) that the Bears and the Saints are the only "good teams" in the NFC
I'm not so sure that they are "good teams," but if they are then so are Philly and Seattle.
2) That the AFC's average dominance means that they absolutely kick the NFC's butt.
Again Seattle vs. Chargers is a case in point. These top AFC teams can be beaten right now by the top NFC teams. I wouldn't bet all my wealth on it, but it's also not a long shot.