Is the AFC really better than the NFC (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

This morning, I was making the argument to someone that the AFC is much better because 5 of the 7 best teams are probably from the AFC, but he countered by saying that many of the worst teams are in the AFC, which is true, as there are 7 AFC teams with 3 wins or less vs. only 4 in the NFC.

Is it as simple as saying the AFC has more top level teams, so they are, therefore, better?

 

[sinatravolta]

The AFC is 3 games over .500. The NFC is 3 games under .500. We'll see how it plays out the rest of the year, but if you're talking about the conferences as a whole, the AFC looks to be a little better than the NFC.

Seems like wins and losses are probably the best way to measure it.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Last year AFC playoff teams were 20-4 vs. the NFC, NFC playoff teams were 12-12 vs. the AFC. Throw in 7 of the last 9 SB winners and you have a legit case.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Last year AFC playoff teams were 20-4 vs. the NFC, NFC playoff teams were 12-12 vs. the AFC. Throw in 7 of the last 9 SB winners and you have a legit case.

I am talking this year, not last year or the last decade.

 

[Bri]

Yes, NFC owned the 80s, it's not as clear cut now though. I think the NFL just spins like that

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Last year AFC playoff teams were 20-4 vs. the NFC, NFC playoff teams were 12-12 vs. the AFC. Throw in 7 of the last 9 SB winners and you have a legit case.

I am talking this year, not last year or the last decade.

Did Manning or Brady switch teams?

 

[Hamstring]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

 

[Bri]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

If they lose to the Pats that'll really make me in this discussion.Last night's game was a shame with all those Giant injuries "going in" and Pettigout during the game. I was hoping for a better game. Kiwi was backing up Arrington also in camp. He, Strahan, and Osi have played together in practice(and maybe preseason, not sure). That'd be a tough trio to block. Their DBs wouldn't be so exposed and the whole game would have been different. Hopefully I'll get my wish and they meet in the playoffs.

 

[flapgreen]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

If they lose to the Pats that'll really make me in this discussion.Last night's game was a shame with all those Giant injuries "going in" and Pettigout during the game. I was hoping for a better game. Kiwi was backing up Arrington also in camp. He, Strahan, and Osi have played together in practice(and maybe preseason, not sure). That'd be a tough trio to block. Their DBs wouldn't be so exposed and the whole game would have been different. Hopefully I'll get my wish and they meet in the playoffs.

 

[Doug B]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

Bears lost to the Dolphins, though. I know that's a game that can be played all day, but still.The Ravens (in N.O.) and Steelers beat the Saints. The Colts beat the Giants in East Rutherford. The Chiefs beat the Seahawks at home, and the Rams in St. Louis. The Jaguars beat the Eagles in Philly, and Dallas at home in the season opener. Cincy beat the Panthers. Buffalo was supposed to be a doormat, but they toppled the Vikings and Packers. The Browns just went into Atlanta and beat the Falcons.

When you take the NFC playoff contenders one by one, you begin to see how much of an influence the AFC opponents have had on their W-L records.

 

[pats3in4]

I usually equate "better" meaning the top teams (e.g. potential SB teams). In recent years, I thought the AFC was clearly better than the NFC, but I'm not sure this year. The Colts look worse than last year, despite being undefeated. The Pats look worse than their December form last year. Denver looks worse. The Steelers are worse. San Diego is tough to judge after giving up 41 to Cincy. Baltimore is tough to judge after yesterday, too. OTOH, Chicago looks like a contender as long as they can keep the game out of Grossman's hands. Seattle should be okay once Hasselbeck is healthy. The Giants can match up in the trenches with any of the AFC teams. I think the AFC is still probably better, but the gap has narrowed this year.

 

[Despyzer]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

The Bears are a great example of why the AFC is clearly superior. The Bears are 7-0 against the NFC and clearly the best team in the conference. Yet they are only a .500 club against the AFC and got blistered by one of the AFC's worst teams.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

Bears lost to the Dolphins, though. I know that's a game that can be played all day, but still.The Ravens (in N.O.) and Steelers beat the Saints. The Colts beat the Giants in East Rutherford. The Chiefs beat the Seahawks at home, and the Rams in St. Louis. The Jaguars beat the Eagles in Philly, and Dallas at home in the season opener. Cincy beat the Panthers. Buffalo was supposed to be a doormat, but they toppled the Vikings and Packers. The Browns just went into Atlanta and beat the Falcons.

When you take the NFC playoff contenders one by one, you begin to see how much of an influence the AFC opponents have had on their W-L records.

This is the best assessment I've seen thus far to justify why the AFC is better than NFC this year. Head to head wins/losses against opponents from the other conference thru week 10 should provide enough trend data. Anyone have the total wins/losses talleyed thus far (AFC vs NFC this season)?

 

[Bri]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

If they lose to the Pats that'll really make me in this discussion.Last night's game was a shame with all those Giant injuries "going in" and Pettigout during the game. I was hoping for a better game. Kiwi was backing up Arrington also in camp. He, Strahan, and Osi have played together in practice(and maybe preseason, not sure). That'd be a tough trio to block. Their DBs wouldn't be so exposed and the whole game would have been different. Hopefully I'll get my wish and they meet in the playoffs.

oh cmon now is it wrong to want to see them play with those two pro bowl players?

 

[flapgreen]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

If they lose to the Pats that'll really make me in this discussion.Last night's game was a shame with all those Giant injuries "going in" and Pettigout during the game. I was hoping for a better game. Kiwi was backing up Arrington also in camp. He, Strahan, and Osi have played together in practice(and maybe preseason, not sure). That'd be a tough trio to block. Their DBs wouldn't be so exposed and the whole game would have been different. Hopefully I'll get my wish and they meet in the playoffs.

oh cmon now is it wrong to want to see them play with those two pro bowl players?

Not at all. But when someone makes a statement like that, it usually means the other team would've won the game. If the Bears had Mike Brown and Bernard Berrian playing, it might've been different too. You might not have meant it that way but it's hard to tell from here.

 

[Ghost Rider]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

If they lose to the Pats that'll really make me in this discussion.Last night's game was a shame with all those Giant injuries "going in" and Pettigout during the game. I was hoping for a better game. Kiwi was backing up Arrington also in camp. He, Strahan, and Osi have played together in practice(and maybe preseason, not sure). That'd be a tough trio to block. Their DBs wouldn't be so exposed and the whole game would have been different. Hopefully I'll get my wish and they meet in the playoffs.

oh cmon now is it wrong to want to see them play with those two pro bowl players?

Not at all. But when someone makes a statement like that, it usually means the other team would've won the game. If the Bears had Mike Brown and Bernard Berrian playing, it might've been different too. You might not have meant it that way but it's hard to tell from here.

Besides, it is not like the Giants lost a squeaker. They lost by 18 at home.

 

[Monse]

Look at yesterday:

2-6 Pittsburgh beat 6-2 New Orleans

2-6 Cleveland beat 5-3 Atlanta

 

[Marc Levin]

I usually equate "better" meaning the top teams (e.g. potential SB teams). In recent years, I thought the AFC was clearly better than the NFC, but I'm not sure this year. The Colts look worse than last year, despite being undefeated. The Pats look worse than their December form last year. Denver looks worse. The Steelers are worse. San Diego is tough to judge after giving up 41 to Cincy. Baltimore is tough to judge after yesterday, too. OTOH, Chicago looks like a contender as long as they can keep the game out of Grossman's hands. Seattle should be okay once Hasselbeck is healthy. The Giants can match up in the trenches with any of the AFC teams. I think the AFC is still probably better, but the gap has narrowed this year.

The AFC had a decent sized gap to fall to drop to the NFC.The collapse of the NFC South and no challenge to the Bears in the North tells me there are a smattering of good NFC teams, one, maybe two, that can compete with the AFC's best, and the AFC is still the dominant conference - what also happened this past weekend is that the Bills and Jets took the Pats and Colts to task while the other big matchups this past week consisted of an AFC shootout (Bengals-Chargers) that was actually a good game, an AFC team that's been down man-handling a competitive NFC team (Steelers-Saints), and a struggling rebuilding AFC team competing all game long against a middle to good NFC Team (Falcs-Browns)- these games how me the AFC is dominating again this year - even the lower level AFC team can compete with anyone, including the teams in their conference that have been handling their bizzness, while the NFC teams keep stumbling against competition they should beat.The Seahawks? Puhleeze. They are a good team - they are also much worse than the top AFC teams. They are struggling against everyone and not dominating anyone (except the Raider.s) Who else beside the Bears (who lost to one of the worst AFC teams and who have struggled OFTEN the last three weeks)?There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:ColtsChargersBearsPatsThen a host of AFC teams (including Baltimore, Broncos) with the 'hawks and Saints sprinkled somewhere around #7/#8

 

[Marc Levin]

Chicago reminds me of the Bills in the late 80s/early 90s.

Dominate their conference, but barely competitive against the opposite conference come playoff time.

 

[Ghost Rider]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:ColtsChargersBearsPats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

 

[johnnyfb]

If the season ended today, here's what the playoffs look like:

NFC: NYG, CHI, NO, SEA, PHI, ATL

AFC: NE, BAL, IND, DEN, SD, NYJ

In the NFC, I see CHI as the only contenders, with PHI and NO able to fake it.

In the AFC, I see BAL, IND, DEN, and SD as contenders, with NE and NYJ not far behind

It's hard for me to see Chicago not coming out of the NFC and probably knocking off the AFC challenger, but the AFC has by far more playoff calibur teams.

I've been watching a lot of football lately - I've been getting into this new live-time play-prediction game on my cell phone - and the NFC teams have looked sloppy and uninteresting.

 

[Marc Levin]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:ColtsChargersBearsPats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

Yup.The way the teams are playing means as much to me as their records. Otherwise, it would go Colts, then Bears.Denver is playing POORLY right now against INFERIOR teams. The Pats seem to be on cruise control, but the broncos appear to be asleep.

 

[Ghost Rider]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:ColtsChargersBearsPats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

Yup.The way the teams are playing means as much to me as their records. Otherwise, it would go Colts, then Bears.Denver is playing POORLY right now against INFERIOR teams. The Pats seem to be on cruise control, but the broncos appear to be asleep.

Denver winning by 4 on the road against a division opponent is less impressive than the Colts beating a 3-6 team by 1 point at home? And the week before, the Broncos won by double digits over a team that just beat the 6-3 Saints. Meanwhile, the Patriots have looked horrible in losing two consecutive home games.

 

[Marc Levin]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:ColtsChargersBearsPats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

Yup.The way the teams are playing means as much to me as their records. Otherwise, it would go Colts, then Bears.Denver is playing POORLY right now against INFERIOR teams. The Pats seem to be on cruise control, but the broncos appear to be asleep.

Denver winning by 4 on the road against a division opponent is less impressive than the Colts beating a 3-6 team by 1 point at home? And the week before, the Broncos won by double digits over a team that just beat the 6-3 Saints. Meanwhile, the Patriots have looked horrible in losing two consecutive home games.

That's why opinions are like . . . We'll see what happens with the Broncos this weekend, but they have looked absolutely HORRENDOUS.And the Pats losing by a TD to the Colts is not looking hoirrible - yer nuts on that count (and I have no l;ove for the Pats)Any time that almost loses to the firiggin' Raiders - TWICE - goes below the Pats on my chart.

 

[Despyzer]

As long as we are back to talking about the best teams (instead of the worst teams like the OP was addressing), the AFC West has twice the number of teams that have seven wins or more than the entire NFC.

 

[Ghost Rider]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:ColtsChargersBearsPats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

Yup.The way the teams are playing means as much to me as their records. Otherwise, it would go Colts, then Bears.Denver is playing POORLY right now against INFERIOR teams. The Pats seem to be on cruise control, but the broncos appear to be asleep.

Denver winning by 4 on the road against a division opponent is less impressive than the Colts beating a 3-6 team by 1 point at home? And the week before, the Broncos won by double digits over a team that just beat the 6-3 Saints. Meanwhile, the Patriots have looked horrible in losing two consecutive home games.

That's why opinions are like . . . We'll see what happens with the Broncos this weekend, but they have looked absolutely HORRENDOUS.And the Pats losing by a TD to the Colts is not looking hoirrible - yer nuts on that count (and I have no l;ove for the Pats)Any time that almost loses to the firiggin' Raiders - TWICE - goes below the Pats on my chart.

The Colts almost lost to the Titans, who are as bad as the Raiders. The Bears almost lost to the Cardinals, who are probably the worst team in the league. Yet they are ahead of New England, according to you. Explain that. And again, the Chargers still have ZERO wins against teams with a winning record. Say what you want about the Broncos, but they do have 3 wins against winning teams. NE has 1. SD has 0. Chicago has 2.

 

[Marc Levin]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:

Colts

Chargers

Bears

Pats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

Yup.

The way the teams are playing means as much to me as their records. Otherwise, it would go Colts, then Bears.

Denver is playing POORLY right now against INFERIOR teams. The Pats seem to be on cruise control, but the broncos appear to be asleep.

Denver winning by 4 on the road against a division opponent is less impressive than the Colts beating a 3-6 team by 1 point at home? And the week before, the Broncos won by double digits over a team that just beat the 6-3 Saints.

Meanwhile, the Patriots have looked horrible in losing two consecutive home games.

That's why opinions are like . . . We'll see what happens with the Broncos this weekend, but they have looked absolutely HORRENDOUS.

And the Pats losing by a TD to the Colts is not looking hoirrible - yer nuts on that count (and I have no l;ove for the Pats)

Any time that almost loses to the firiggin' Raiders - TWICE - goes below the Pats on my chart.

The Colts almost lost to the Titans, who are as bad as the Raiders. The Bears almost lost to the Cardinals, who are probably the worst team in the league.

Yet they are ahead of New England, according to you. Explain that.

And again, the Chargers still have ZERO wins against teams with a winning record.

Say what you want about the Broncos, but they do have 3 wins against winning teams. NE has 1. SD has 0. Chicago has 2.

Bolded part says it all - I recommend you drop it before you ruin your own thread with the ism. Get back to NFC v. AFC.Suffice to say I see 6 or 7 solid AFC teams that coulds win it all, and I see one (the Bears) with two ('hawks and Saints) as longshots.

The Panthers could go a long way to making me believe another team exist sin that conference by kicking the crap out of the Bucs tonight - if it is another parity driven NFC South matchup, I'm writing off the entire division.

 

[Bri]

Chicago reminds me of the Bills in the late 80s/early 90s.Dominate their conference, but barely competitive against the opposite conference come playoff time.

"opposite conference come playoff time"?

 

[Ghost Rider]

There also do not appear to be any truly dominant teams in either conference - right now, I'd rank the top-4 teams thusly:

Colts

Chargers

Bears

Pats

I hate to be a homer once again, but how can you possibly put New England ahead of Denver? Denver has beaten more good teams, has a better record than NE, and beat the Patriots in NE! Yes, Denver has been winning ugly, but winning is winning. And as good as SD looks at times, they still have ZERO wins over teams that currently have a winning record.

Yup.

The way the teams are playing means as much to me as their records. Otherwise, it would go Colts, then Bears.

Denver is playing POORLY right now against INFERIOR teams. The Pats seem to be on cruise control, but the broncos appear to be asleep.

Denver winning by 4 on the road against a division opponent is less impressive than the Colts beating a 3-6 team by 1 point at home? And the week before, the Broncos won by double digits over a team that just beat the 6-3 Saints.

Meanwhile, the Patriots have looked horrible in losing two consecutive home games.

That's why opinions are like . . . We'll see what happens with the Broncos this weekend, but they have looked absolutely HORRENDOUS.

And the Pats losing by a TD to the Colts is not looking hoirrible - yer nuts on that count (and I have no l;ove for the Pats)

Any time that almost loses to the firiggin' Raiders - TWICE - goes below the Pats on my chart.

The Colts almost lost to the Titans, who are as bad as the Raiders. The Bears almost lost to the Cardinals, who are probably the worst team in the league.

Yet they are ahead of New England, according to you. Explain that.

And again, the Chargers still have ZERO wins against teams with a winning record.

Say what you want about the Broncos, but they do have 3 wins against winning teams. NE has 1. SD has 0. Chicago has 2.

Bolded part says it all - I recommend you drop it before you ruin your own thread with the ism. Get back to NFC v. AFC.Suffice to say I see 6 or 7 solid AFC teams that coulds win it all, and I see one (the Bears) with two ('hawks and Saints) as longshots.

The Panthers could go a long way to making me believe another team exist sin that conference by kicking the crap out of the Bucs tonight - if it is another parity driven NFC South matchup, I'm writing off the entire division.

Fair enough. The Panthers strike me as one of those teams that could be the best team if they gave their best effort every week, but you never know what you are going to get from them. I guess that is why they are 4-4.

 

[Bri]

NFC has the Bears, therfore they are better. Without the Bears the AFC owns.

If they lose to the Pats that'll really make me in this discussion.Last night's game was a shame with all those Giant injuries "going in" and Pettigout during the game. I was hoping for a better game. Kiwi was backing up Arrington also in camp. He, Strahan, and Osi have played together in practice(and maybe preseason, not sure). That'd be a tough trio to block. Their DBs wouldn't be so exposed and the whole game would have been different. Hopefully I'll get my wish and they meet in the playoffs.

oh cmon now is it wrong to want to see them play with those two pro bowl players?

Not at all. But when someone makes a statement like that, it usually means the other team would've won the game. If the Bears had Mike Brown and Bernard Berrian playing, it might've been different too. You might not have meant it that way but it's hard to tell from here.

I never said that. I was just hoping for a better game and said as such. I'm a Patsfan I don't care if the Giants lose. That possibly could have been the NFC Championship preview. I just wanted the slugfest I looked forward to a few weeks ago. Pierce was giving the Bears some trouble running in the first half and that teased me more. I just wanted a good game.Yes I'd want the Bears to be healthy too, it'd be just as boring/mildly entertaining if not.

 

[Marc Levin]

Chicago reminds me of the Bills in the late 80s/early 90s.Dominate their conference, but barely competitive against the opposite conference come playoff time.

"opposite conference come playoff time"?

Read: Super Bowl.

 

[Marc Levin]

The Panthers strike me as one of those teams that could be the best team if they gave their best effort every week, but you never know what you are going to get from them. I guess that is why they are 4-4.

Wish a Panther fan would jump in and help me here - I had them pegged as going back to the NFC Champ game again, and winning.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Through week 10:

NFC has 18 victories over AFC

AFC has 22 victories over NFC

Slight edge to the AFC through week 10. Actually NFC was leading through week 6 or 7...it has only been the last couple of weeks the AFC has really turned the tides.

 

[Despyzer]

it has only been the last couple of weeks the AFC has really turned the tides.

It's getting closer to the time that games really matter and the NFC teams are being exposed.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Through week 10:NFC has 18 victories over AFCAFC has 22 victories over NFCSlight edge to the AFC through week 10. Actually NFC was leading through week 6 or 7...it has only been the last couple of weeks the AFC has really turned the tides.

Update through week 11NFC has 20 victories over AFCAFC has 28 victories over NFCAFC went +4 more in week 11 and barring a drastic turn in remaining 5 weeks is looking to be the dominant division, no questions or debates.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Through week 10:NFC has 18 victories over AFCAFC has 22 victories over NFCSlight edge to the AFC through week 10. Actually NFC was leading through week 6 or 7...it has only been the last couple of weeks the AFC has really turned the tides.

Update through week 11NFC has 20 victories over AFCAFC has 28 victories over NFCAFC went +4 more in week 11 and barring a drastic turn in remaining 5 weeks is looking to be the dominant division, no questions or debates.

Update through week 12AFC goes 4-0 over NFC in week 12NFC still has only 20 victories over AFC AFC now has 32 victories over NFCIs this the most lopsided conference over another in history? Its got to be up there.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Through week 10:NFC has 18 victories over AFCAFC has 22 victories over NFCSlight edge to the AFC through week 10. Actually NFC was leading through week 6 or 7...it has only been the last couple of weeks the AFC has really turned the tides.

Update through week 11NFC has 20 victories over AFCAFC has 28 victories over NFCAFC went +4 more in week 11 and barring a drastic turn in remaining 5 weeks is looking to be the dominant division, no questions or debates.

Update through week 12AFC goes 4-0 over NFC in week 12NFC still has only 20 victories over AFC AFC now has 32 victories over NFCIs this the most lopsided conference over another in history? Its got to be up there.

I seriously doubt a +6 margin by a conference is the most lopsided in history.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

He is saying that six victories are what separates the two teams. They'd be even at 26.

 

[Utter Chaos]

I think Week 12 shows just how much better the AFC is than the NFC

Not only did the AFC win all four games but the also covered the spread in all four.

Colts all over the Eagles and likewise for the Dolphins against the Lions. Pats beat the Bears in a close game that really wasn't as close as the score would indicate. And finally the Titans over the Giants. Wasn't there talk earlier in the year that the Titans may not win a game all year?

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Another 3-1 week for the AFC...

thru week 13 its AFC 35 wins vs. NFC 21 wins, eventually there will be a "correction" late in the season, there always is.

 

[Despyzer]

12 out of the 16 AFC teams are sporting records of .500 or better in week 15. That's just incredible.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Updates through week 15:

A 2 win 1 loss week for the AFC.

AFC = 37 wins

NFC = 22 wins

Well....pretty much anyone that plays the Raiders gets a victory unless you have a really unlucky game (refer to the Steelers vs. Raiders game)

 

[The_Man]

It was actually 3-1 for the AFC:

Pitt-Carolina

NYJ-Minn

Den-AZ

were all winners for the AFC

 

[The Ref]

Already got my AFC -4.5 locked in for the Supper Bowl and feeling good about it.

 

[LBH]

The AFC is clearly stronger than the NFC right now. The NFC east is the only division that has any depth

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Already got my AFC -4.5 locked in for the Supper Bowl and feeling good about it.

4-star

 

[culdeus]

Already got my AFC -4.5 locked in for the Supper Bowl and feeling good about it.

Preseason was -3. There will be at least a 4 point middle here which I'll gladly take.Keep in mind the dog is on a ATS roll the last 10 or so super bowls.

 

[The_Man]

When AFC teams play NFC teams, there should be rules in place that prevent the AFC team from advancing the ball due to a turnover.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Chicago reminds me of the Bills in the late 80s/early 90s.Dominate their conference, but barely competitive against the opposite conference come playoff time.

"opposite conference come playoff time"?

Read: Super Bowl.

For the record, the Bills did fine against the NFC during the regular season. They honked one game to an inferior NYG team, and then ran up against two all-time great Dallas teams and had the misfortune of having to face the Redskins during the season when Mark Rypien sold his soul to Lucifer in exchange for being a stellar QB for a year. That's a far cry from being "barely competitive against the opposite conference."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The AFC is clearly stronger than the NFC right now. The NFC east is the only division that has any depth

Agreed. This shouldn't even be up for debate. The best team in the NFC (Chicago) is a slightly inferior copy of Baltimore. Otherwise there seems to be a pretty significant gap between the conferences.