toughest division (1 Viewer)

[hi1111]

why do people say that the nfc east is the toughtest? are you serious? one team an overhyped qb with no running game, good d though. the giants have a qb that struggles to make 50% of his passes but will be good one day, they have a solid back but hes 31 and if he goes down... the skins have good coaching, a decent d, and a suspect qb and then there is the cowboys pretty good team on paper but they dont play to the potential.

i think the best division is the afc north steelers (what more can i say), bengals who will have the best offense once palmer is 100%. and baltimore, comon best d in the league over the last 5-6 years, and this year with a decent qb and good rb's they are gonna be on top of their game. the browns arent that bad, defininetly headed in the right direction

 

[lord_helmet]

Agreed

 

[John Mamula]

word

 

[Slinger]

The Buccaneers have had the best D in the last 5-6 years, but you do have a good point about the AFC North being a toughter division than the NFL East.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

why do people say that the nfc east is the toughtest? are you serious? one team an overhyped qb with no running game, good d though. the giants have a qb that struggles to make 50% of his passes but will be good one day, they have a solid back but hes 31 and if he goes down... the skins have good coaching, a decent d, and a suspect qb and then there is the cowboys pretty good team on paper but they dont play to the potential.i think the best division is the afc north steelers (what more can i say), bengals who will have the best offense once palmer is 100%. and baltimore, comon best d in the league over the last 5-6 years, and this year with a decent qb and good rb's they are gonna be on top of their game. the browns arent that bad, defininetly headed in the right direction

mcnabb is an overhyped qb? you lose all credibility right there.

 

[T Man]

My top 3 are :

(1) NFC East

(2) AFC North

(3) NFC South

The NFC East has two playoff teams from a year ago (NYG and Wash.), and two others from two years ago (Dal. and Philly). The two teams that id not make it come back healthy. So from top to bottom this is the best.

Yes the top teams in the AFC North are stronger (Pitt and Cincy), Balt. is an enigma. Has there window closed because of the age of the defense. Is McNair enough to make the offense potent? Can Lewis regain his form? And as to Cleveland, with a 2nd year QB and injuries on the OL and the defense still in flux, they are also an unknow. Can this division prove to be the best, yes. But as of now they aren't.

As for tHe NFC SOuth, it is just as tough as the AFC NOrth. With Carolina and TB they are strong. ATL is talented and with its defense healthy they can beat anyone in the league. THe weak link is NO -- and I believe that NO has the talent to compete with the best. Their offense will be strong, and if the defense can improve they will be very difficult. People tend to forget that just 2 years ago (the year before katrina) they the last team eliminated from playoff contention. (IIRC Minnesota came from behind and won its last game knocking the Saints out). So the talent is on the roster, the question is what Peyton can do with it.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

no love for the afc west?

by the way, the eagles were th eonly weak team in the east last year. how many injuries did they have again? how many injuries to starters did they have again? no team could compete with that many injuries.

 

[Despyzer]

(1) NFC East(2) AFC North(3) NFC South

So two of the top three divisions come from a conference whose top team got it's rear-end kicked by the AFC's 6th best team in the SB? The AFC has been as dominant over the last two or three years as the AL has over the NL in major league baseball. Something isn't adding up here.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

(1) NFC East(2) AFC North(3) NFC South

So two of the top three divisions come from a conference whose top team got it's rear-end kicked by the AFC's 6th best team in the SB? The AFC has been as dominant over the last two or three years as the AL has over the NL in major league baseball. Something isn't adding up here.

For the record the nfc south was 10-6 aganst the afc last year. overall the afc was 26-22 against the nfc last year. not exactly dominating.And the eagles losing by a FG isnt getting their rear end kicked.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

I'd say the NFC East teams have pretty similar odds of winning the SB as the AFC North teams. Close enough to not be significantly different.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

I'd say the NFC East teams have pretty similar odds of winning the SB as the AFC North teams. Close enough to not be significantly different.

Looking at one site's SB odds, and then adding up each team's odds in the division, here's what I've got:AFC East 12.3%AFC North 13.5%AFC South 13.3%AFC West 13.3%NFC East 18.0%NFC North 9.2%NFC South 10.5%NFC West 9.9%I'm guessing the discrepancy is you're much more up on the Ravens and Bengals than most people, who view the Redskins and Giants as better teams. Dallas and Pittsburgh are both 10-1 odds, and obviously the Eagles are much more likely to win it all than Cleveland.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

I'd say the NFC East teams have pretty similar odds of winning the SB as the AFC North teams. Close enough to not be significantly different.

I disagree Chase.1) I think the AFC is clearly the superior conference.-2005 AFC Playoff teams were 21-4 against the NFC (including SB and Colts laydown at Sea)-AFC has won 7 of the past 9 Super Bowls2) I think Seattle and Carolina are the top two teams in the NFC. The AFC is a bit more muddied with traditional powers like Indy losing Edge and the Pats without a WR in camp.3) QBs: In terms of NFL QBs McNabb is the only NFC East QB that belongs in the same sentence with Palmer, Roethlisberger and McNair in 2006. Manning is still green and Brunell and Bledsoe are descending. Unfortunately for McNabb he is probably now surrounded by the least talented offense of any team in the NFC East.4) Defense: The Steelers and Ravens play at a different level than DAL, NYG, WAS or PHI. With Ed Reed and Ray Lewis healthy again I expect the Ravens D to be among the best in the NFL.

 

[Sidewinder]

My top 3 are : (1) NFC East(2) AFC North(3) NFC South...

Well, the NFC South plays both the NFC East and the AFC North this year, so the debate can at least be partially settled on the field.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) I think the AFC is clearly the superior conference.-2005 AFC Playoff teams were 21-4 against the NFC (including SB and Colts laydown at Sea)-AFC has won 7 of the past 9 Super Bowls

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that's pretty well reflected in the odds I posted, which gave the AFC a 52.4% chance and the NFC a 47.6% chance. The AFC as a whole is better, but that doesn't mean it's easier for the AFC's teams to win the SB. The top teams in the AFC will have to face tougher teams in the playoffs AND will have to face tougher teams all season (the bottom of the AFC >> bottom of the NFC). This early in the off-season it's tough to give anything more than a 55% chance of winning the SB to the AFC.

2) I think Seattle and Carolina are the top two teams in the NFC. The AFC is a bit more muddied with traditional powers like Indy losing Edge and the Pats without a WR in camp.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the odds of each division sporting the SB winner.

3) QBs: In terms of NFL QBs McNabb is the only NFC East QB that belongs in the same sentence with Palmer, Roethlisberger and McNair in 2006. Manning is still green and Brunell and Bledsoe are descending. Unfortunately for McNabb he is probably now surrounded by the least talented offense of any team in the NFC East.

I agree that McNabb, Palmer and Big Ben are the best three QBs. I don't agree that McNair's on a different tier than Bledsoe, Manning or Brunell, although I don't think either of those three are great. McNair's averaged 6.5 YPA and has 24 TD/20 INT the past two seasons, and is no longer a running threat. That's a far cry from the McNair of old, where he averaged about a yard more per pass, significantly fewer INTs, and was one of the best rushers at the position. He's just not the same.

4) Defense: The Steelers and Ravens play at a different level than DAL, NYG, WAS or PHI.

The Steelers do. The Redskins D is better than the Ravens D, or at least is even. That Washington D is manned by probably the best DC in the NFL, and a mediocre offense has hidden how good they've really been IMO. Of course, defense is only half the battle.If I had to rank the teams in order of likelihood of winning the SB, it would go:1. Pittsburgh2. Dallas3. Washington4. Cincinnati5. New York6. Baltimore7. Philadelphia8. ClevelandThat could be re-ordered a bit, and I did it in about 10 seconds. But Cincinnati's a longshot to win the SB with a horrible defense. Sam Adams and Dexter Jackson are nice, but losing Odell Thurman is a big loss. Cincinnati ranked 28th in D last year, and allowed 30.9 PPG in their 8 games after the bye week. Adams and Jackson are not transforming that defense into a SB quality one. The Bengals will need a lot of breaks to get to FL IMO.Also not buying the Baltimore hype, as the Ravens don't appear to be one of the 8 best teams in the conference. (NE, IND, PIT, KC, DEN, SD, JAC, CIN). I feel pretty confident that at least 3 and maybe 4 of those NFCE teams are in the top 8 of their conference, which gives them a leg up on winning the SB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

no love for the afc west?

I think the AFC West is great. Too many good teams in the AFC though to think the West has the best chance of winning the SB, but I might agree that the AFCW is the best division. Three teams that can beat anybody.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

I'd say the NFC East teams have pretty similar odds of winning the SB as the AFC North teams. Close enough to not be significantly different.

I disagree Chase.1) I think the AFC is clearly the superior conference.

-2005 AFC Playoff teams were 21-4 against the NFC (including SB and Colts laydown at Sea)

-AFC has won 7 of the past 9 Super Bowls

2) I think Seattle and Carolina are the top two teams in the NFC. The AFC is a bit more muddied with traditional powers like Indy losing Edge and the Pats without a WR in camp.

3) QBs: In terms of NFL QBs McNabb is the only NFC East QB that belongs in the same sentence with Palmer, Roethlisberger and McNair in 2006. Manning is still green and Brunell and Bledsoe are descending. Unfortunately for McNabb he is probably now surrounded by the least talented offense of any team in the NFC East.

4) Defense: The Steelers and Ravens play at a different level than DAL, NYG, WAS or PHI. With Ed Reed and Ray Lewis healthy again I expect the Ravens D to be among the best in the NFL.

Mcnair really hasn't been any good since 2003, so I would just leave Palmer, Mcnabb, and Roethlisberger in that sentence. Manning might be green but he's coming along great and is on a great offense with burress, barber, and shockey among the big talents. Bledsoe now has Owens and should be one of the top QBs in the league. Owens made Garcia look good in SF and he'll do the same for Bledsoe.As for Mcnabb being on an untalented offense, LJ Smith led all TE's in receptions before Mcnabb went own last year. L.J. has major potential with Mcnabb back. Brian Westbrook is arguably the most versatile back in the NFL and has Moats, another young and versatile rb backing him up. With Schobel now in the fold and the possibility of two TE sets, along with Reggie Brown who could explode this year, the Eagle's offense has some real potential. Maybe not 2004 Eagles offense-like, but potential to be a top 10 offense. Also, Greg Lewis failed miserably in the WR1 role last year, but he is back in the spot where he excells- a 3rd or 4th WR out of the slot. Pinkston and Gaffney, although not great, add some hands to the WR corps.

The Giants' defense is in great shape this year after being a sub-par defense last year. They've made some good additions and should improve. Dallas and Washington ranked 10th and 9th in D last year and should continue to improve. The Eagles had a plethora of injuries last year and should be back on track this year. With the additions of Howard and Bunkley along the D-Line, and the emergence of Trent Cole, the Eages D-Line could be scary this season. The Eagles have one of the best secondaries in the NFL and stumbled badly last year because of poor pressure by the D-Line. With that now fixed expect a big year from their secondary. Their LB corps, however, is still uninspiring.

 

[hi1111]

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

The Steelers and Ravens play at a different level than DAL, NYG, WAS or PHI. With Ed Reed and Ray Lewis healthy again I expect the Ravens D to be among the best in the NFL.

correction a HAPPY ray lewis. incase you havent noticed but i am a ravens fan and always did wonder why no ever mentions Thomas (a 270 pounder who played safety sometimes and shoudlve made the pro bowl) or suggs who to me is a stronger but slower and more compact peppers

I think it depends on your definition of toughest. The NFC East has 4 teams that could win the division. The AFC North has 3 teams that could win the Super Bowl.

I'd say the NFC East teams have pretty similar odds of winning the SB as the AFC North teams. Close enough to not be significantly different.

I disagree Chase.

1) I think the AFC is clearly the superior conference.

-2005 AFC Playoff teams were 21-4 against the NFC (including SB and Colts laydown at Sea)

-AFC has won 7 of the past 9 Super Bowls

2) I think Seattle and Carolina are the top two teams in the NFC. The AFC is a bit more muddied with traditional powers like Indy losing Edge and the Pats without a WR in camp.

3) QBs: In terms of NFL QBs McNabb is the only NFC East QB that belongs in the same sentence with Palmer, Roethlisberger and McNair in 2006. Manning is still green and Brunell and Bledsoe are descending. Unfortunately for McNabb he is probably now surrounded by the least talented offense of any team in the NFC East.

4) Defense: The Steelers and Ravens play at a different level than DAL, NYG, WAS or PHI. With Ed Reed and Ray Lewis healthy again I expect the Ravens D to be among the best in the NFL.

Mcnair really hasn't been any good since 2003, so I would just leave Palmer, Mcnabb, and Roethlisberger in that sentence. Manning might be green but he's coming along great and is on a great offense with burress, barber, and shockey among the big talents. Bledsoe now has Owens and should be one of the top QBs in the league. Owens made Garcia look good in SF and he'll do the same for Bledsoe.

As for Mcnabb being on an untalented offense, LJ Smith led all TE's in receptions before Mcnabb went own last year. L.J. has major potential with Mcnabb back. Brian Westbrook is arguably the most versatile back in the NFL and has Moats, another young and versatile rb backing him up. With Schobel now in the fold and the possibility of two TE sets, along with Reggie Brown who could explode this year, the Eagle's offense has some real potential. Maybe not 2004 Eagles offense-like, but potential to be a top 10 offense. Also, Greg Lewis failed miserably in the WR1 role last year, but he is back in the spot where he excells- a 3rd or 4th WR out of the slot. Pinkston and Gaffney, although not great, add some hands to the WR corps.

The Giants' defense is in great shape this year after being a sub-par defense last year. They've made some good additions and should improve. Dallas and Washington ranked 10th and 9th in D last year and should continue to improve. The Eagles had a plethora of injuries last year and should be back on track this year. With the additions of Howard and Bunkley along the D-Line, and the emergence of Trent Cole, the Eages D-Line could be scary this season. The Eagles have one of the best secondaries in the NFL and stumbled badly last year because of poor pressure by the D-Line. With that now fixed expect a big year from their secondary. Their LB corps, however, is still uninspiring.

i never said mcnair was great but he is a qb that wont lose. the eagles do have a good defense, LJ smith is decent TE, but westbrook? he can catch but how much can he run? moats, comon man he won't start for any team simply because he doesnt start for philly. the dline is the key but let's look at that, jevon hasn't really been special in the rush and he's never been good for the run and howard was good but he's suspect at the moment. the giants offense is decent, their defense let's see, 2 great DE nothing in the middle, good Lb corps but injury filled, and secondary, if madison still had it he's be a dolphin. i think the only team with playoff contention material is dallas...

The Buccaneers have had the best D in the last 5-6 years, but you do have a good point about the AFC North being a toughter division than the NFL East.

What makes mcnabb so good?

 

[Despyzer]

^

^

^



Some of the worst nesting ever.

 

[thayman]

why do people say that the nfc east is the toughtest? are you serious? one team an overhyped qb with no running game, good d though. the giants have a qb that struggles to make 50% of his passes but will be good one day, they have a solid back but hes 31 and if he goes down... the skins have good coaching, a decent d, and a suspect qb and then there is the cowboys pretty good team on paper but they dont play to the potential.i think the best division is the afc north steelers (what more can i say), bengals who will have the best offense once palmer is 100%. and baltimore, comon best d in the league over the last 5-6 years, and this year with a decent qb and good rb's they are gonna be on top of their game. the browns arent that bad, defininetly headed in the right direction

The parody alone is what makes the NFC East much more tougher than the AFC North. Every team in the AFC West gets Cleveland twice, that's pretty much a gimme right there. You can make an arguement for/against each team in the NFC East to win, or lose the division. You can't say the same thing about the AFC North.

 

[John Mamula]

nfc north

 

[Despyzer]

You can make an arguement for/against each team in the NFC East to win, or lose the division.

You can say the same thing about the NFC North. That doesn't make them one of the best.

 

[cscmtp]

Joe Gibbs

Bill Parcells

Andy Reid

Tom Coughlin

THAT is why the NFC East is the best division.

 

[fatness]

Looking at the Browns and Ravens last season convinces me the AFC North is not the toughest division. It is a division with 2 tough teams.

The Browns are not good, the Ravens are declining. The Bengals have a powerhouse offense but their defense is always suspect. The Steelers were very tough last year with defense and the run game but they've lost their most powerful runner and their WR#2 is still "who?"

 

[roadkill1292]

Looking at the Browns and Ravens last season convinces me the AFC North is not the toughest division. It is a division with 2 tough teams.

The Browns are not good, the Ravens are declining. The Bengals have a powerhouse offense but their defense is always suspect. The Steelers were very tough last year with defense and the run game but they've lost their most powerful runner and their WR#2 is still "who?"

Fats, this is interesting because I know you live within a stone's throw of training camp. What makes you think this? I'm not buying into the Super Bowl hype, either, (I see more of a 8-8 or 9-7 season because of the schedule) but don't you think they're at least a little bit improved?

 

[Assani Fisher]

1) I think the AFC is clearly the superior conference.-2005 AFC Playoff teams were 21-4 against the NFC (including SB and Colts laydown at Sea)-AFC has won 7 of the past 9 Super Bowls

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that's pretty well reflected in the odds I posted, which gave the AFC a 52.4% chance and the NFC a 47.6% chance. The AFC as a whole is better, but that doesn't mean it's easier for the AFC's teams to win the SB. The top teams in the AFC will have to face tougher teams in the playoffs AND will have to face tougher teams all season (the bottom of the AFC >> bottom of the NFC). This early in the off-season it's tough to give anything more than a 55% chance of winning the SB to the AFC.

2) I think Seattle and Carolina are the top two teams in the NFC. The AFC is a bit more muddied with traditional powers like Indy losing Edge and the Pats without a WR in camp.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the odds of each division sporting the SB winner.

3) QBs: In terms of NFL QBs McNabb is the only NFC East QB that belongs in the same sentence with Palmer, Roethlisberger and McNair in 2006. Manning is still green and Brunell and Bledsoe are descending. Unfortunately for McNabb he is probably now surrounded by the least talented offense of any team in the NFC East.

I agree that McNabb, Palmer and Big Ben are the best three QBs. I don't agree that McNair's on a different tier than Bledsoe, Manning or Brunell, although I don't think either of those three are great. McNair's averaged 6.5 YPA and has 24 TD/20 INT the past two seasons, and is no longer a running threat. That's a far cry from the McNair of old, where he averaged about a yard more per pass, significantly fewer INTs, and was one of the best rushers at the position. He's just not the same.

4) Defense: The Steelers and Ravens play at a different level than DAL, NYG, WAS or PHI.

The Steelers do. The Redskins D is better than the Ravens D, or at least is even. That Washington D is manned by probably the best DC in the NFL, and a mediocre offense has hidden how good they've really been IMO. Of course, defense is only half the battle.If I had to rank the teams in order of likelihood of winning the SB, it would go:1. Pittsburgh2. Dallas3. Washington4. Cincinnati5. New York6. Baltimore7. Philadelphia8. ClevelandThat could be re-ordered a bit, and I did it in about 10 seconds. But Cincinnati's a longshot to win the SB with a horrible defense. Sam Adams and Dexter Jackson are nice, but losing Odell Thurman is a big loss. Cincinnati ranked 28th in D last year, and allowed 30.9 PPG in their 8 games after the bye week. Adams and Jackson are not transforming that defense into a SB quality one. The Bengals will need a lot of breaks to get to FL IMO.Also not buying the Baltimore hype, as the Ravens don't appear to be one of the 8 best teams in the conference. (NE, IND, PIT, KC, DEN, SD, JAC, CIN). I feel pretty confident that at least 3 and maybe 4 of those NFCE teams are in the top 8 of their conference, which gives them a leg up on winning the SB.

Great posting Chase. Agree with nearly everything you said except having Pit as #1(I think they're gonna have a falloff this year).

 

[thayman]

You can make an arguement for/against each team in the NFC East to win, or lose the division.

You can say the same thing about the NFC North. That doesn't make them one of the best.

I didn't say best. I said toughest. Read my entire post and you might have caught that.

 

[fatness]

Fats, this is interesting because I know you live within a stone's throw of training camp. What makes you think this? I'm not buying into the Super Bowl hype, either, (I see more of a 8-8 or 9-7 season because of the schedule) but don't you think they're at least a little bit improved?

I think they're aging and in decline in general, and that the "window of opportunity for them is down to 2 years" thinking is 2-3 years out of date. Their D-line gets pushed around now. Their O-line gets pushed around now. Ray Lewis is a great player but in decline. Jamal Lewis may or may not return to old form (I think he won't, he sustains too much contact and it has taken its toll). McNair has not been a picture of health for the last several years. Billick lost control of the team for awhile last season. I'm not sure any of those problems will be solved this year.I dunno. They just look like an old team in decline, who can't admit it to themselves yet.

 

[T Man]

(1) NFC East(2) AFC North(3) NFC South

So two of the top three divisions come from a conference whose top team got it's rear-end kicked by the AFC's 6th best team in the SB? The AFC has been as dominant over the last two or three years as the AL has over the NL in major league baseball. Something isn't adding up here.

Yup. Because its divisions and not teams. The AFC is a better conference; but its because it has no "weak" division. Every division has at least 2-3 legitimate contenders. Are the stronger teams in the AFC, yes. Is the toughest division top to bottom in the AFC, nope.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Joe GibbsBill ParcellsAndy ReidTom CoughlinTHAT is why the NFC East is the best division.

The last time any of those coaches won a Super Bowl was 15 years ago.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

QUOTE(Frenchy Fuqua @ Aug 3 2006, 02:43 PM) 2) I think Seattle and Carolina are the top two teams in the NFC. The AFC is a bit more muddied with traditional powers like Indy losing Edge and the Pats without a WR in camp.I'm not sure how this is relevant to the odds of each division sporting the SB winner.

I think the NFC East winner is likely to be 10-6 giving the 1-2 playoff seeds (homefield and a bye) to Seattle and Carolina. Whereas in the AFC the Steelers or Bengals could easily get the 1-2 seed a bye and homefield.