AFC vs. NFC (1 Viewer)

[zoonation]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.

In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.

They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.

The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?

This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.

In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

I think KC, Miami, Buffalo, Oakland and Cleveland are way better than Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans and St. Louis. NO/STL/ATL are the three worst teams in the NFL, IMO.(And for the record, the AFC is 8-6)The NFC East is terrific, one of the best divisions in the NFL. But the rest of the conference is still bad.

 

[zoonation]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

I think KC, Miami, Buffalo, Oakland and Cleveland are way better than Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans and St. Louis. NO/STL/ATL are the three worst teams in the NFL, IMO.(And for the record, the AFC is 8-6)The NFC East is terrific, one of the best divisions in the NFL. But the rest of the conference is still bad.

Didn't Detroit beat the Raiders in Oakland this year?

 

[renesauz]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

 

[pizzatyme]

You don't base how strong a conference is on their weakest teams! You base it on recent performances. When, exactly, was he last time the NFC won the Super Bowl?

 

[Chase Stuart]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

I think KC, Miami, Buffalo, Oakland and Cleveland are way better than Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans and St. Louis. NO/STL/ATL are the three worst teams in the NFL, IMO.(And for the record, the AFC is 8-6)The NFC East is terrific, one of the best divisions in the NFL. But the rest of the conference is still bad.

Didn't Detroit beat the Raiders in Oakland this year?

Yes, but KC and Miami are both better than Detroit.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

 

[bizkliz]

pittsburgh, NE, indy, baltimore, SD, denver, cinci, jax vs. dallas & GB

yeah, AFC rules.

-biz-

 

[pizzatyme]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

CS I just don't see it. Who are the early-season powerhouse teams for the NFC? Dallas, maybe Philly?I see 4 teams in the AFC better than both of those teams. NE, Indy, Pitt, Balt.If you're talking about toilet bowl contending teams, maybe the gap had been reduced. But not at the top!

 

[renesauz]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

A lot, and I disagree that KC and Miami are better then Detroit...quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home.

Did you actually watch the game or are you just looking at the score?SD was leading the game with 2:04 left in the 4th quarter. I'd hardly call that "with relative ease."

The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE.

First off, remove "perhaps" from your sentence....New England would be at least a 5 point favorite on a neutral field right now. Indy would also be a significant favorite. Pit would be a slight favorite imo.

Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game.

And N.O. was widely considered a top NFC team coming into the season and the Titans went there and won. Cincy went to Seattle(widely considered a top NFC team) and almost won. All of these are just one game and shouldn't be looked into too much.Also Arizona is turning into a pretty respectable team imo, and the Ravens will rarely blow teams out this year due to their bad O.

The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.

This is highly debateable, and remember how SB losers have fared in recent years. Despite playing 2/3 home games, Chicago is 1-2 and has been outscored 33-58 so far. They have a good defense....how does that make them any better than say Minnesota at this point?

They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link.

Thats a silly cliche that isn't really true.

 

[pizzatyme]

If anyone is thinking the GB presents a real threat for the Super Bowl, think again. I love Favre, but without a quality RB, this team will suffer throughout the season.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

CS I just don't see it. Who are the early-season powerhouse teams for the NFC? Dallas, maybe Philly?I see 4 teams in the AFC better than both of those teams. NE, Indy, Pitt, Balt.If you're talking about toilet bowl contending teams, maybe the gap had been reduced. But not at the top!

Last year, the AFC easily had four of the top five teams. IMO, Jacksonville and the Jets were better than any other NFC team, too. Denver, Buffalo and Tennessee weren't far behind, and on par with Philly/Dallas/New Orleans, either.This year? Maybe the AFC still has the three top teams, maybe not. But I don't know how you argue that Green Bay and Dallas aren't in the top five, and the entire NFC East is very strong this year. Last year, the AFC had the top four divisions in the entire NFL. This year, I think the NFC East is the second, if not the first, strongest division in the NFL.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If anyone is thinking the GB presents a eal threat for the Super Bowl, think again. I love Favre, but without a quality RB, this team will suffer throughout the season.

Green Bay wasn't very impressive in week one, but they were lights out™ the past two weeks. Blowing out the Giants on the road deserves a lot more credit than people realize, and that makes me a bigger believer in them than beating San Diego at home in a close game. The Pack are for real. Consider -- the Giants lost at Dallas by 10 and won at Washington by 7. Dallas is a top four team in the NFL, and Washington had been 2-0 before that game (beating a decent Miami team and a very good Eagles team -- who only lost to GB, so we can't use that argument when ranking Green Bay). If the Giants had lost by 22 to New England, everyone would say it's a sign that New England is awesome.So far this year, the Giants have played like a top ten team in the league, but have simply run up against the best teams in the league -- their opponents are 6-0 in non-Giants games. Outside of SD (1-2), NO (0-3) and Buf (0-3), the Giants have had the hardest schedule in the league. Blowing them out at home is very impressive.The Pack are for real.

 

[Max Power]

The AFC is two injuries away from being the weaker conference (Manning/Brady)

 

[Couch Potato]

First, just a general comment relating to some of the posts in the thread. Three games is not a large enough sample to determine who the good teams and the bad teams are. Nor can we just look at last year as our barometer. This season unfolds week by week, and as it does we will see who the good and bad teams are. It's too soon to say whether the Saints and Rams are horrible, or the Steelers and Cowboys are great.

Also, every year there is a surprise team who emerges like New Orleans did last year. That's the beauty of the NFL, and what I find a lot of fun. It could be Houston maybe, or Tennessee, or someone who is currently 1-2. Who knows? And the assumed powers can come back to earth very quickly. Maturation of youth on the plus side, aging and injuries on the minus side, and just plain luck on both sides, have a lot to do with how won-lost records rise and fall from year to year.

Yes, the AFC has been the stronger conference, but there's nothing magical about the conference teams are in. The top teams just happen to be in that conference right now. Salary caps, the draft, all rules, everything is level for both conferences. There was a time when we were talking about Dallas, Green Bay and San Francisco like we now are talking about Indianapolis, New England, and whoever your 3rd team in the AFC might be (don't just assume a 3-0 record makes Pittsburgh better than Baltimore). Things cycle. No big deal.

So, are the conferences becoming more even? They should be. The rules and the system are designed for parity over time. Eventually it comes back to the middle and then to the other direction. It'll happen, whether this year, or next, or in 5 years, but it'll happen.

 

[pizzatyme]

Couch, sure things come back around. But we're talking about the here and now.

As for who has the strongest division? Who cares which division is stronger? And IIRC the AFC South is undefeated outside of their division!

It is about Super Bowl contending teams. And the AFC is simply better right now.

The Packers have beaten a struggling Chargers and Eagles squads. I will give you that the QB and Defense of the packers are legitimate. The running game will be their achilles heal!

Dallas resembles the Pats and Colts. I'd put them in the conversation. That's where it stops.

Let's give this thread a visit in 3 weeks.

 

[Chase Stuart]

First, just a general comment relating to some of the posts in the thread. Three games is not a large enough sample to determine who the good teams and the bad teams are. Nor can we just look at last year as our barometer. This season unfolds week by week, and as it does we will see who the good and bad teams are. It's too soon to say whether the Saints and Rams are horrible, or the Steelers and Cowboys are great.Also, every year there is a surprise team who emerges like New Orleans did last year. That's the beauty of the NFL, and what I find a lot of fun. It could be Houston maybe, or Tennessee, or someone who is currently 1-2. Who knows? And the assumed powers can come back to earth very quickly. Maturation of youth on the plus side, aging and injuries on the minus side, and just plain luck on both sides, have a lot to do with how won-lost records rise and fall from year to year.Yes, the AFC has been the stronger conference, but there's nothing magical about the conference teams are in. The top teams just happen to be in that conference right now. Salary caps, the draft, all rules, everything is level for both conferences. There was a time when we were talking about Dallas, Green Bay and San Francisco like we now are talking about Indianapolis, New England, and whoever your 3rd team in the AFC might be (don't just assume a 3-0 record makes Pittsburgh better than Baltimore). Things cycle. No big deal.So, are the conferences becoming more even? They should be. The rules and the system are designed for parity over time. Eventually it comes back to the middle and then to the other direction. It'll happen, whether this year, or next, or in 5 years, but it'll happen.

Not to be too simple, but a lot of it comes down to QB play. The top 3 QBs (even though the Bengals aren't one of the top 3 teams) are in the same conference. No one argues that. And with the top two QBs and the #1 pick in the draft in the AFC, that might stay for awhile. Given Rivers/Big Ben/Young/Cutler, there's a ton of young, talented QB talent in this conference. The Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers duo didn't pan out, although Jason Campbell might. Outside of that, three of the past four years the AFC has dominated the QB draft, and the fourth year was the worst one for QBs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Couch, sure things come back around. But we're talking about the here and now.As for who has the strongest division? Who cares which division is stronger? And IIRC the AFC South is undefeated outside of their division!It is about Super Bowl contending teams. And the AFC is simply better right now.The Packers have beaten a struggling Chargers and Eagles squads. I will give you that the QB and Defense of the packers are legitimate. The running game will be their achilles heal!Dallas resembles the Pats and Colts. I'd put them in the conversation. That's where it stops.Let's give this thread a visit in 3 weeks.

Eagles aren't exactly struggling. They won by 349 last time I checked. They struggled because they played the Pack and another very good team, who just lost to another very good team (who lost to the Pack and the best team in the NFC).

 

[Assani Fisher]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

CS I just don't see it. Who are the early-season powerhouse teams for the NFC? Dallas, maybe Philly?I see 4 teams in the AFC better than both of those teams. NE, Indy, Pitt, Balt.

If you're talking about toilet bowl contending teams, maybe the gap had been reduced. But not at the top!

Last year, the AFC easily had four of the top five teams. IMO, Jacksonville and the Jets were better than any other NFC team, too. Denver, Buffalo and Tennessee weren't far behind, and on par with Philly/Dallas/New Orleans, either.This year? Maybe the AFC still has the three top teams, maybe not. But I don't know how you argue that Green Bay and Dallas aren't in the top five, and the entire NFC East is very strong this year. Last year, the AFC had the top four divisions in the entire NFL. This year, I think the NFC East is the second, if not the first, strongest division in the NFL.

Dallas..yes. GB? Not quite. Tennessee, Houston, Baltimore, and even SD(yes I know they beat them) are all better imo.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

CS I just don't see it. Who are the early-season powerhouse teams for the NFC? Dallas, maybe Philly?I see 4 teams in the AFC better than both of those teams. NE, Indy, Pitt, Balt.

If you're talking about toilet bowl contending teams, maybe the gap had been reduced. But not at the top!

Last year, the AFC easily had four of the top five teams. IMO, Jacksonville and the Jets were better than any other NFC team, too. Denver, Buffalo and Tennessee weren't far behind, and on par with Philly/Dallas/New Orleans, either.This year? Maybe the AFC still has the three top teams, maybe not. But I don't know how you argue that Green Bay and Dallas aren't in the top five, and the entire NFC East is very strong this year. Last year, the AFC had the top four divisions in the entire NFL. This year, I think the NFC East is the second, if not the first, strongest division in the NFL.

Dallas..yes. GB? Not quite. Tennessee, Houston, Baltimore, and even SD(yes I know they beat them) are all better imo.

All those teams have losses. I don't see what the argument is for Baltimore, who hasn't looked good at all this year. The Chargers have two losses and don't look very good. Tennessee and Houston lost to Indy so you might want to give them passes at first glance. But Green Bay's beaten three teams better than the Texans' best win (SD, NYG and PHI are all better than CAR and KC) and arguably better than the Titans' best win too (NO is clearly worse than those three, and JAX might be, too).The only argument I can see against GB is that they were bad last year. But they were better than Houston and not too far behind Tennessee. The Ravens can't pass the ball worth a lick, and have had backup QBs drive all over them the past two fourth quarters. The Chargers lost to GB and got blown out by the Pats. They beat the Bears, but Chicago has been mediocre this season.

 

[pollardsvision]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

i agree with most of that. except i'd say the NFC is quite comparable with the AFC if you take out NE and Indy. i'm not totally sold on pittsburgh. the NFC east could very well be the best conference in football (and it might not be that close)the bottom teams in the NFC are coming along well.

 

[Despyzer]

Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home.

GB had to mount a comeback in the last two minutes of the game in order to win at home. I'm not sure how that jibes with this comment.If this is what you have to resort to to make your argument, I think you have already answered your own question.

 

[MarcO]

pittsburgh, NE, indy, baltimore, SD, denver, cinci, jax vs. dallas & GByeah, AFC rules.-biz-

I'd put a "middle of the road" Seattle team up against BAL, DEN, CINCI, and JAX any week, in fact SEA plays PITT next week and I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle goes INTO Pittsburgh and wins.

 

[Chase Stuart]

pittsburgh, NE, indy, baltimore, SD, denver, cinci, jax vs. dallas & GByeah, AFC rules.-biz-

I'd put a "middle of the road" Seattle team up against BAL, DEN, CINCI, and JAX any week, in fact SEA plays PITT next week and I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle goes INTO Pittsburgh and wins.

I wouldn't say Seattle is a middle of the road NFC team. They're the third best division winner. I think Pittsburgh, the AFC's third best division winner, is a whole lot better than Seattle, and we'll see that next week.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

CS I just don't see it. Who are the early-season powerhouse teams for the NFC? Dallas, maybe Philly?I see 4 teams in the AFC better than both of those teams. NE, Indy, Pitt, Balt.

If you're talking about toilet bowl contending teams, maybe the gap had been reduced. But not at the top!

Last year, the AFC easily had four of the top five teams. IMO, Jacksonville and the Jets were better than any other NFC team, too. Denver, Buffalo and Tennessee weren't far behind, and on par with Philly/Dallas/New Orleans, either.This year? Maybe the AFC still has the three top teams, maybe not. But I don't know how you argue that Green Bay and Dallas aren't in the top five, and the entire NFC East is very strong this year. Last year, the AFC had the top four divisions in the entire NFL. This year, I think the NFC East is the second, if not the first, strongest division in the NFL.

Dallas..yes. GB? Not quite. Tennessee, Houston, Baltimore, and even SD(yes I know they beat them) are all better imo.

All those teams have losses. I don't see what the argument is for Baltimore, who hasn't looked good at all this year. The Chargers have two losses and don't look very good. Tennessee and Houston lost to Indy so you might want to give them passes at first glance. But Green Bay's beaten three teams better than the Texans' best win (SD, NYG and PHI are all better than CAR and KC) and arguably better than the Titans' best win too (NO is clearly worse than those three, and JAX might be, too).The only argument I can see against GB is that they were bad last year. But they were better than Houston and not too far behind Tennessee. The Ravens can't pass the ball worth a lick, and have had backup QBs drive all over them the past two fourth quarters. The Chargers lost to GB and got blown out by the Pats. They beat the Bears, but Chicago has been mediocre this season.

Upsets happen. Variance exists. Just because a team has a better record doesn't mean they are better. The best team doesn't always win each game and doesn't always win the SB. Its even possible that the best team in the league can experience negative variance and miss the entire playoffs. IMO those teams would be favored over GB on a neutral field. I'm not saying that they've necessarily been more or less impressive so far.

 

[Assani Fisher]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

i agree with most of that. except i'd say the NFC is quite comparable with the AFC if you take out NE and Indy. i'm not totally sold on pittsburgh. the NFC east could very well be the best conference in football (and it might not be that close)the bottom teams in the NFC are coming along well.

The AFC South imho is far and away the best conference in football and its not even remotely close.

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

i agree with most of that. except i'd say the NFC is quite comparable with the AFC if you take out NE and Indy. i'm not totally sold on pittsburgh. the NFC east could very well be the best conference in football (and it might not be that close)the bottom teams in the NFC are coming along well.

The AFC South imho is far and away the best conference in football and its not even remotely close.

I think the AFC north is the best division in football. Baltimore, Cincy and the Steelers are all contenders.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

CS I just don't see it. Who are the early-season powerhouse teams for the NFC? Dallas, maybe Philly?I see 4 teams in the AFC better than both of those teams. NE, Indy, Pitt, Balt.

If you're talking about toilet bowl contending teams, maybe the gap had been reduced. But not at the top!

Last year, the AFC easily had four of the top five teams. IMO, Jacksonville and the Jets were better than any other NFC team, too. Denver, Buffalo and Tennessee weren't far behind, and on par with Philly/Dallas/New Orleans, either.This year? Maybe the AFC still has the three top teams, maybe not. But I don't know how you argue that Green Bay and Dallas aren't in the top five, and the entire NFC East is very strong this year. Last year, the AFC had the top four divisions in the entire NFL. This year, I think the NFC East is the second, if not the first, strongest division in the NFL.

Dallas..yes. GB? Not quite. Tennessee, Houston, Baltimore, and even SD(yes I know they beat them) are all better imo.

All those teams have losses. I don't see what the argument is for Baltimore, who hasn't looked good at all this year. The Chargers have two losses and don't look very good. Tennessee and Houston lost to Indy so you might want to give them passes at first glance. But Green Bay's beaten three teams better than the Texans' best win (SD, NYG and PHI are all better than CAR and KC) and arguably better than the Titans' best win too (NO is clearly worse than those three, and JAX might be, too).The only argument I can see against GB is that they were bad last year. But they were better than Houston and not too far behind Tennessee. The Ravens can't pass the ball worth a lick, and have had backup QBs drive all over them the past two fourth quarters. The Chargers lost to GB and got blown out by the Pats. They beat the Bears, but Chicago has been mediocre this season.

Upsets happen. Variance exists. Just because a team has a better record doesn't mean they are better. The best team doesn't always win each game and doesn't always win the SB. Its even possible that the best team in the league can experience negative variance and miss the entire playoffs. IMO those teams would be favored over GB on a neutral field. I'm not saying that they've necessarily been more or less impressive so far.

Would you agree that GB has been one of the five most impressive teams this year?

 

[Chase Stuart]

It is always assumed that the AFC is a vastly superior to the NFC. I'm not so sure the gap is that wide.In the AFC you do have three great teams (I used to think four) in NE, IND, PITT. After that I'm not so sure that the AFC is even beter than the NFC. Arizona went into Baltimore, widely considered a top AFC team, and almost won the game. Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home. The Cowboys are as good as anybody right now, save perhaps NE. The Bears, when healthy are a top team in either league as well.They say you are ony as strong as your weakest link. Looking at both conferences, who would you say has the weakest teams? In the NFC you have Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, Minnesota and maybe St. Louis. In the AFC you have Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Buffalo.The middle of the road teams in both conferences are similar IMO. Looking at teams like Seattle, Philly, San Fran, Carolin and Tampa, you do not see an appreciable difference from similarly situated teams in the AFC. Is denver better than these teams? How about the Jets, Jags or Bengals?This year the AFC leads the season series 7-6.In my view, the only difference between the conferences is at the vey top, where the AFC has 3 great teams to the NFC's one (and the jury is really still out on that). The rest of the teams are pretty even. So, in conclusion, saying te AFC is a far better conference is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

i agree with most of that. except i'd say the NFC is quite comparable with the AFC if you take out NE and Indy. i'm not totally sold on pittsburgh. the NFC east could very well be the best conference in football (and it might not be that close)the bottom teams in the NFC are coming along well.

The AFC South imho is far and away the best conference in football and its not even remotely close.

I think the AFC north is the best division in football. Baltimore, Cincy and the Steelers are all contenders.

Baltimore and Cincinnati aren't very good. Cincinnatti can't stop anyone and can't run the ball. They're bad at 3/4 of the game from scrimmage. All they can do is pass.Baltimore can't pass the ball, but do have a terrific run D. I'm not convinced that their running game or pass D is as good as people think. Baltimore's better than Cincy, but how can you not be concerned by the way backup QBs drove their teams down the field on them the past two fourth quarters? They're certainly not in the elite of the NFL, and are firmly outside the top quarter of the league, IMO.

 

[zoonation]

pittsburgh, NE, indy, baltimore, SD, denver, cinci, jax vs. dallas & GB

yeah, AFC rules.

-biz-

Cinci sucks. Maybe the worst defene in the league. Lost to Seattle and looked bad doing it. Denver is the most overrated team in the NFL.

 

[zoonation]

Green Bay handled San Diego with relative ease at home.

GB had to mount a comeback in the last two minutes of the game in order to win at home. I'm not sure how that jibes with this comment.If this is what you have to resort to to make your argument, I think you have already answered your own question.

I admit I didn't watch much of that game. Still, the Packers beat what most considered a top 3 team coming into the season.

 

[SSOG]

I agree with the origanel poster. There is still a difference, and the AFC is still the stronger conferance, but the gap has definately shrunk.

The difference between the conferences last year was maybe the largest in history. I think most of us would agree that the AFC is still better than the NFC but the gap has shrunk. Just a question of how much.

Not even close. 2004 was the largest gap between the two conferences in history. In 2004, only two teams in the entire NFC posted a winning record against the AFC (Atlanta and Minny were both 3-1). The AFC posted an *INSANE* 69% winning percentage (44-20) and pretty much just humiliated the entire conference. According to Football Outsiders, ten of the top 11 teams in the NFL resided in the AFC (meaning there were two teams that MISSED THE PLAYOFFS in the AFC that would have been good for a first-round bye in the NFC). That was the year that the Carolina Panthers almost made the playoffs at 7-9.

Yes, the AFC has been the stronger conference, but there's nothing magical about the conference teams are in. The top teams just happen to be in that conference right now. Salary caps, the draft, all rules, everything is level for both conferences. There was a time when we were talking about Dallas, Green Bay and San Francisco like we now are talking about Indianapolis, New England, and whoever your 3rd team in the AFC might be (don't just assume a 3-0 record makes Pittsburgh better than Baltimore). Things cycle. No big deal.

Actually, if you judge the conferences based on their head-to-head record (which I think is the only fair way), then the NFC has never really been better than the AFC (except maybe for a few years immediately after the merger). Even in the NFC's heyday where they won 13 straight SBs, the AFC held its own in head-to-head play. The AFC actually had a winning record against the NFC for the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and now the 00s.

 

[Max Power]

and today the garbage of the NFC (ariz) knocks off a 3-0 AFC Team (pitt)

 

[MaddHatter]

No one will ever win this debate.

 

[Chase Stuart]

and today the garbage of the NFC (ariz) knocks off a 3-0 AFC Team (pitt)

Agreed. Big win there.Dallas and Green Bay are two of the best four teams in the league. I think the NFC is showing a lot so far.I'm still down on SF, STL, NO, CAR, ATL, CHI, MIN and maybe TB and DET(not convinced at all by their 3-1 records), but the gap has closed. The AFC is still better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom (i.e., they win 1 vs. 1, 8 v. 8 and 16 v. 16) but the NFC is no doormat this year.

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

and today the garbage of the NFC (ariz) knocks off a 3-0 AFC Team (pitt)

Agreed. Big win there.Dallas and Green Bay are two of the best four teams in the league. I think the NFC is showing a lot so far.I'm still down on SF, STL, NO, CAR, ATL, CHI, MIN and maybe TB and DET(not convinced at all by their 3-1 records), but the gap has closed. The AFC is still better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom (i.e., they win 1 vs. 1, 8 v. 8 and 16 v. 16) but the NFC is no doormat this year.

More denial.The AFC West is the worst division in the league. Miami is the worst team. And the discussion is senseless because none compare to IND & NE and the comparisons go no where from there.

 

[Chase Stuart]

and today the garbage of the NFC (ariz) knocks off a 3-0 AFC Team (pitt)

Agreed. Big win there.Dallas and Green Bay are two of the best four teams in the league. I think the NFC is showing a lot so far.I'm still down on SF, STL, NO, CAR, ATL, CHI, MIN and maybe TB and DET(not convinced at all by their 3-1 records), but the gap has closed. The AFC is still better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom (i.e., they win 1 vs. 1, 8 v. 8 and 16 v. 16) but the NFC is no doormat this year.

More denial.The AFC West is the worst division in the league. Miami is the worst team. And the discussion is senseless because none compare to IND & NE and the comparisons go no where from there.

You think Miami is worse than St. Louis?

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

and today the garbage of the NFC (ariz) knocks off a 3-0 AFC Team (pitt)

Agreed. Big win there.Dallas and Green Bay are two of the best four teams in the league. I think the NFC is showing a lot so far.I'm still down on SF, STL, NO, CAR, ATL, CHI, MIN and maybe TB and DET(not convinced at all by their 3-1 records), but the gap has closed. The AFC is still better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom (i.e., they win 1 vs. 1, 8 v. 8 and 16 v. 16) but the NFC is no doormat this year.

More denial.The AFC West is the worst division in the league. Miami is the worst team. And the discussion is senseless because none compare to IND & NE and the comparisons go no where from there.

You think Miami is worse than St. Louis?

Assuming injury decimation is no excuse, the Rams haven't lost to the Jets & an AFC West team. I would think the counter argument would be Minnesota -- they lost to Kansas City! (Oh! So did the greatest team of recent history, San Diego!)

 

[Chase Stuart]

and today the garbage of the NFC (ariz) knocks off a 3-0 AFC Team (pitt)

Agreed. Big win there.Dallas and Green Bay are two of the best four teams in the league. I think the NFC is showing a lot so far.I'm still down on SF, STL, NO, CAR, ATL, CHI, MIN and maybe TB and DET(not convinced at all by their 3-1 records), but the gap has closed. The AFC is still better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom (i.e., they win 1 vs. 1, 8 v. 8 and 16 v. 16) but the NFC is no doormat this year.

More denial.The AFC West is the worst division in the league. Miami is the worst team. And the discussion is senseless because none compare to IND & NE and the comparisons go no where from there.

You think Miami is worse than St. Louis?

Assuming injury decimation is no excuse, the Rams haven't lost to the Jets & an AFC West team. I would think the counter argument would be Minnesota -- they lost to Kansas City! (Oh! So did the greatest team of recent history, San Diego!)

The Rams lost to the Bucs, Panthers and 49ers, in addition to getting manhandled by the Cowboys. They're the clear winner for worst team, IMO.

 

[zoonation]

The gap is closer than I though pre-week 4.

Right now, on a neutral field, I'll take Arizona over the Titans.

 

[S.K.A.]

Just to pile on,

I believe the gap is much closer than at anytime in the past 5 years.