Why are there no repeat NFC teams in the Superbowl? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I was thinking about this the last few days. Look at the last 10 NFC teams in the Superbowl:

St. Louis

Tampa Bay

Carolina

Philadelphia

Seattle

Chicago

New York

Arizona

New Orleans

Green Bay

10 Superbowls, 10 different teams.

Now take a look at the AFC over the same period of time:

New England

Oakland

New England

New England

Pittsburgh

Indianapolis

New England

Pittsburgh

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

With the sole exception of Oakland in 2002, it's been all the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. During this time period, there have been stretches where other AFC teams have been very good: the Ravens, Chargers, and most recently the Jets come to mind. Yet these other teams can't seem to get over the hump and into the final game.

Anyone have an opinion as to why this is? Are New England, Pittsburgh and Indy simply better franchises? Are they just lucky to have ended up with elite QBs? And why can't any team repeat in the NFC? Thoughts?

 

[No. 16]

I was thinking about this the last few days. Look at the last 10 NFC teams in the Superbowl:St. Louis - Kurt WarnerTampa Bay - Brad JohnsonCarolina - Jake DelhommePhiladelphia - McNabbSeattle - Matt HasselbeckChicago - GrossmanNew York - Eli ManningArizona - Kurt WarnerNew Orleans - Drew BreesGreen Bay - Aaron Rodgers10 Superbowls, 10 different teams.Now take a look at the AFC over the same period of time:New England - Tom BradyOakland - Rich GannonNew England - Tom BradyNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningPittsburgh- Big BenWith the sole exception of Oakland in 2002, it's been all the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. During this time period, there have been stretches where other AFC teams have been very good: the Ravens, Chargers, and most recently the Jets come to mind. Yet these other teams can't seem to get over the hump and into the final game. Anyone have an opinion as to why this is? Are New England, Pittsburgh and Indy simply better franchises? Are they just lucky to have ended up with elite QBs? And why can't any team repeat in the NFC? Thoughts?

See a trend? I do.

 

[timschochet]

I was thinking about this the last few days. Look at the last 10 NFC teams in the Superbowl:St. Louis - Kurt WarnerTampa Bay - Brad JohnsonCarolina - Jake DelhommePhiladelphia - McNabbSeattle - Matt HasselbeckChicago - GrossmanNew York - Eli ManningArizona - Kurt WarnerNew Orleans - Drew BreesGreen Bay - Aaron Rodgers10 Superbowls, 10 different teams.Now take a look at the AFC over the same period of time:New England - Tom BradyOakland - Rich GannonNew England - Tom BradyNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningPittsburgh- Big BenWith the sole exception of Oakland in 2002, it's been all the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. During this time period, there have been stretches where other AFC teams have been very good: the Ravens, Chargers, and most recently the Jets come to mind. Yet these other teams can't seem to get over the hump and into the final game. Anyone have an opinion as to why this is? Are New England, Pittsburgh and Indy simply better franchises? Are they just lucky to have ended up with elite QBs? And why can't any team repeat in the NFC? Thoughts?

See a trend? I do.

So you think it's all QB?

 

[tenaka]

I think its mostly about management. Look at how those 3 teams are run, how they get free agents and how well they draft. A year or two ago someone put together a breakdown of Steeler 1st and 2nd round draft picks vs Bear 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the past decade. The Steelers were mostly hits with a lot of pro bowlers and couple potential HOFers. The Bears, for contrast, were mostly busts and a lot of the players never even became full time starters.

Its probably just coincidence that not only are they all AFC teams but that some other routinely-poorly run franchises are in their divisions... making those teams look possible more inept than they actually are.

 

[Run It Up]

Well the reason being in recent years is because the NFC comparitvely to the AFC isnt anywhere near as good.

In the past the NFC had some monsters. Also has a lot to do with markets and owners listening to fans.

Its starting to get there as the Brady, Manning and Roethlisberger dynasties are coming to an end, in the NFC we have Rodgers Stafford and Cutler all in the same division, Bradford, Ryan and Brees. Once the big 3 dynasties end it will be much more balanced and imo favor the NFC, that is of course until the better organizations (practically every team in the AFC east, north and south) just out manage the NFC.

 

[drummer]

I was thinking about this the last few days. Look at the last 10 NFC teams in the Superbowl:St. Louis - Kurt WarnerTampa Bay - Brad JohnsonCarolina - Jake DelhommePhiladelphia - McNabbSeattle - Matt HasselbeckChicago - GrossmanNew York - Eli ManningArizona - Kurt WarnerNew Orleans - Drew BreesGreen Bay - Aaron Rodgers10 Superbowls, 10 different teams.Now take a look at the AFC over the same period of time:New England - Tom BradyOakland - Rich GannonNew England - Tom BradyNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningPittsburgh- Big BenWith the sole exception of Oakland in 2002, it's been all the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. During this time period, there have been stretches where other AFC teams have been very good: the Ravens, Chargers, and most recently the Jets come to mind. Yet these other teams can't seem to get over the hump and into the final game. Anyone have an opinion as to why this is? Are New England, Pittsburgh and Indy simply better franchises? Are they just lucky to have ended up with elite QBs? And why can't any team repeat in the NFC? Thoughts?

See a trend? I do.

Bingo!

 

[mad sweeney]

They're three aspects of the same team.

 

[No. 16]

I think its mostly about management. Look at how those 3 teams are run, how they get free agents and how well they draft. A year or two ago someone put together a breakdown of Steeler 1st and 2nd round draft picks vs Bear 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the past decade. The Steelers were mostly hits with a lot of pro bowlers and couple potential HOFers. The Bears, for contrast, were mostly busts and a lot of the players never even became full time starters.Its probably just coincidence that not only are they all AFC teams but that some other routinely-poorly run franchises are in their divisions... making those teams look possible more inept than they actually are.

Management is easy once you have a stud QB.

 

[tenaka]

I think its mostly about management. Look at how those 3 teams are run, how they get free agents and how well they draft. A year or two ago someone put together a breakdown of Steeler 1st and 2nd round draft picks vs Bear 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the past decade. The Steelers were mostly hits with a lot of pro bowlers and couple potential HOFers. The Bears, for contrast, were mostly busts and a lot of the players never even became full time starters.Its probably just coincidence that not only are they all AFC teams but that some other routinely-poorly run franchises are in their divisions... making those teams look possible more inept than they actually are.

Management is easy once you have a stud QB.

Its easy to draft a pro bowl/hof safety instead of a left tackle that never starts and you cut 2 seasons later because you have a stud QB? I think I need that logic explained...

 

[No. 16]

I think its mostly about management. Look at how those 3 teams are run, how they get free agents and how well they draft. A year or two ago someone put together a breakdown of Steeler 1st and 2nd round draft picks vs Bear 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the past decade. The Steelers were mostly hits with a lot of pro bowlers and couple potential HOFers. The Bears, for contrast, were mostly busts and a lot of the players never even became full time starters.Its probably just coincidence that not only are they all AFC teams but that some other routinely-poorly run franchises are in their divisions... making those teams look possible more inept than they actually are.

Management is easy once you have a stud QB.

Its easy to draft a pro bowl/hof safety instead of a left tackle that never starts and you cut 2 seasons later because you have a stud QB? I think I need that logic explained...

Drafting well helps and that is certainly an important part of management and winning, but the question wasn't how do you make a good team. The question was: "Why are there no repeat NFC teams in the Super Bowl?"No team makes it to the Super Bowl with bad management, but you can make it there with a marginal QB. However, without an elite QB it's tough to repeat the Super Bowl trip because there are just too many players to keep in order to sustain success. While a QB can not win the Super Bowl by himself, the QB is SINGLE PLAYER with the most impact on a team. A team like the 2002 Bucs depended on a great defense to get them there. However, with so many players that make the defense great it's tough to sustain that success. Way too many variables.Don't get me wrong an elite QB isn't going to get you to the Super Bowl by himself, but having one certainly makes things easier for management. Just the simple fact that a team doesn't have to burn high draft picks looking for a QB will help any team get better and stay good. To put in numbers I'd attribute the success of the Colts, Steelers, and Patriots at roughly 60% to having a HOF QB and 40% to great management.

 

[tenaka]

I think its mostly about management. Look at how those 3 teams are run, how they get free agents and how well they draft. A year or two ago someone put together a breakdown of Steeler 1st and 2nd round draft picks vs Bear 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the past decade. The Steelers were mostly hits with a lot of pro bowlers and couple potential HOFers. The Bears, for contrast, were mostly busts and a lot of the players never even became full time starters.Its probably just coincidence that not only are they all AFC teams but that some other routinely-poorly run franchises are in their divisions... making those teams look possible more inept than they actually are.

Management is easy once you have a stud QB.

Its easy to draft a pro bowl/hof safety instead of a left tackle that never starts and you cut 2 seasons later because you have a stud QB? I think I need that logic explained...

Drafting well helps and that is certainly an important part of management and winning, but the question wasn't how do you make a good team. The question was: "Why are there no repeat NFC teams in the Super Bowl?"No team makes it to the Super Bowl with bad management, but you can make it there with a marginal QB. However, without an elite QB it's tough to repeat the Super Bowl trip because there are just too many players to keep in order to sustain success. While a QB can not win the Super Bowl by himself, the QB is SINGLE PLAYER with the most impact on a team. A team like the 2002 Bucs depended on a great defense to get them there. However, with so many players that make the defense great it's tough to sustain that success. Way too many variables.Don't get me wrong an elite QB isn't going to get you to the Super Bowl by himself, but having one certainly makes things easier for management. Just the simple fact that a team doesn't have to burn high draft picks looking for a QB will help any team get better and stay good. To put in numbers I'd attribute the success of the Colts, Steelers, and Patriots at roughly 60% to having a HOF QB and 40% to great management.

But there have been other great QBs, some in the NFC, over the last decade. Its not like those are the only 3 great QBs. So then management becomes the reason those 3 specific teams are able to be consistently successful. No one ever said QBs don't matter.

 

[psychobillies]

We have seen what the pats can do without Brady, and to a lesser extent, what the steelers can do without Ben. They're both good organizations top to bottom, but IMHO, the colts are a six win team without manning.

Also, the AFC has been way overrated.

 

[timschochet]

We have seen what the pats can do without Brady, and to a lesser extent, what the steelers can do without Ben. They're both good organizations top to bottom, but IMHO, the colts are a six win team without manning.Also, the AFC has been way overrated.

The Pats can get to the playoffs without Brady, possibly, and the Steelers can perhaps have a winning record without Ben. Neither team can get to the the SB without these guys, however. But when you say the AFC is overrated, compared to what? The three teams I mentioned are 6-3 in the Superbowl over the last 10 years.

 

[No. 16]

I think its mostly about management. Look at how those 3 teams are run, how they get free agents and how well they draft. A year or two ago someone put together a breakdown of Steeler 1st and 2nd round draft picks vs Bear 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the past decade. The Steelers were mostly hits with a lot of pro bowlers and couple potential HOFers. The Bears, for contrast, were mostly busts and a lot of the players never even became full time starters.

Its probably just coincidence that not only are they all AFC teams but that some other routinely-poorly run franchises are in their divisions... making those teams look possible more inept than they actually are.

Management is easy once you have a stud QB.

Its easy to draft a pro bowl/hof safety instead of a left tackle that never starts and you cut 2 seasons later because you have a stud QB? I think I need that logic explained...

Drafting well helps and that is certainly an important part of management and winning, but the question wasn't how do you make a good team. The question was: "Why are there no repeat NFC teams in the Super Bowl?"

No team makes it to the Super Bowl with bad management, but you can make it there with a marginal QB. However, without an elite QB it's tough to repeat the Super Bowl trip because there are just too many players to keep in order to sustain success.

While a QB can not win the Super Bowl by himself, the QB is SINGLE PLAYER with the most impact on a team. A team like the 2002 Bucs depended on a great defense to get them there. However, with so many players that make the defense great it's tough to sustain that success. Way too many variables.

Don't get me wrong an elite QB isn't going to get you to the Super Bowl by himself, but having one certainly makes things easier for management. Just the simple fact that a team doesn't have to burn high draft picks looking for a QB will help any team get better and stay good.

To put in numbers I'd attribute the success of the Colts, Steelers, and Patriots at roughly 60% to having a HOF QB and 40% to great management.

But there have been other great QBs management groups, some in the NFC, over the last decade. Its not like those are the only 3 great QBs management groups. So then management QBs becomes the reason those 3 specific teams are able to be consistently successful. No one ever said QBs management don't matter.

FIXED.

 

[The Jerk]

We have seen what the pats can do without Brady, and to a lesser extent, what the steelers can do without Ben. They're both good organizations top to bottom, but IMHO, the colts are a six win team without manning.Also, the AFC has been way overrated.

The Pats can get to the playoffs without Brady, possibly, and the Steelers can perhaps have a winning record without Ben. Neither team can get to the the SB without these guys, however. But when you say the AFC is overrated, compared to what? The three teams I mentioned are 6-3 in the Superbowl over the last 10 years.

Not to mention that one of the three losses was suffered by a team that many pundits were already anointing as the greatest in the history of the NFL.I like the question, Tim.A related question is:Why do the talking head blowhards always go gaga for teams like the Jets or Eagles (more the Jets due to them being in the AFC) and talk them up as Super Bowl favorites while seemingly putting the Steelers and Colts as afterthoughts. The Patriots are always highly lauded due to both leading the NFL in championships and SB appearances in the past decade and having ESPN literally in the neighborhood, so they are usually not ignored.After the Steelers starters throttled the Eagles the same night the Patriots destroyed their preseason foe, I listened into a Boston sports talk show to hear a different perspective on the league than the local Pittsburgh opinions. The Boston radio tandem were saying many of the same things and also laughing at the Eagles. They asked, why does the national media essentially make the Eagles the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl due to how they could possibly do it with their new acqusitions instead of teams like the Patriots, Steelers and Colts who clearly can and have done it? While clearly it's not going to get people's attention to trot out the teams that are almost always contenders, it wouldn't hurt to temper their enthusiasm for the team with the newest toy(s).

 

[The Jerk]

By the way, I don't have any answer as to why the NFC is 10 different teams in 10 years.

And I also don't have anything that has not already been said about the AFC troika.

I will say, however, that it's hard to consider the AFC as overrated when they have won 5 of the past 8 Super Bowls. Yet more than that, take a look at the following statistics compiled on a Steelers message board and edited and expanded by me. Just look at the colors in the first table and try to say the AFC is overrated. Based on my research, the NFC has not won the cumulative regular season interconference battle with the AFC since 1995. (There were ties in 2000, 2001 and 2007, however.)

Since 2004...

NFL teams ranked by interconference record

1. New England (26-2)

t2. Indianapolis (22-6)

t2. Pittsburgh (22-6)

4. Tennessee (20-8)

5. Baltimore (19-9)

t6. Atlanta (18-10)

t6. San Diego (18-10)

t8. Cincinnati (16-11-1)

t8. Philadelphia (16-11-1)

10. Jacksonville (16-12)

t11. Dallas (15-13)

t11. New Orleans (15-13)

t11. New York Giants (15-13)

t14. Chicago (14-14)

t14. Denver (14-14)

t14. Miami (14-14)

17. New York Jets (13-15)

t18. Buffalo (12-16)

t18. Houston (12-16)

t18. Kansas City (12-16)

t18. Minnesota (12-16)

t22. Arizona (11-17)

t22. Green Bay (11-17)

t22. Seattle (11-17)

t25. Carolina (10-18)

t25. Cleveland (10-18)

t27. Detroit (9-19)

t27. Oakland (9-19)

t27. San Francisco (9-19)

t27. Tampa Bay (9-19)

t27. Washington (9-19)

32. St. Louis (8-20)

Divisions ranked by interconference record

1. AFC South (70-42)

2. AFC North (67-44-1)

3. AFC East (65-47)

4. NFC East (55-56-1)

5. NFC South (52-60)

6. AFC West (53-59)

7. NFC North (46-66)

8. NFC West (39-73)

Undefeated/winless teams in interconference play

2004

Undefeated: Buffalo, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, New England, Pittsburgh.

Winless: San Francisco, Washington.

2005

Undefeated: Cincinnati, Pittsburgh.

Winless: Buffalo, Green Bay, Washington.

2006

Undefeated: Kansas City, New England, San Diego.

Winless: Arizona, Houston, Minnesota.

2007

Undefeated: Green Bay, Indianapolis, New England.

Winless: Carolina, Miami, New York Jets, Oakland, St. Louis.

2008

Undefeated: Carolina, New England, Tennessee.

Winless: Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis.

2009

Undefeated: Indianapolis, New Orleans, San Diego, Tennessee.

Winless: Carolina, Cleveland, St. Louis, Tampa Bay.

2010

Undefeated: New England, Kansas City.

Winless: Carolina.

Conference advantage by season

2004: AFC (44-20)

2005: AFC (34-30)

2006: AFC (40-24)

2007: Even (32-32)

2008: AFC (34-29-1)

2009: AFC (37-27)

2010: AFC (34-30)

Overall: AFC (255-192-1)

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I was thinking about this the last few days. Look at the last 10 NFC teams in the Superbowl:St. Louis - Kurt WarnerTampa Bay - Brad JohnsonCarolina - Jake DelhommePhiladelphia - McNabbSeattle - Matt HasselbeckChicago - GrossmanNew York - Eli ManningArizona - Kurt WarnerNew Orleans - Drew BreesGreen Bay - Aaron Rodgers10 Superbowls, 10 different teams.Now take a look at the AFC over the same period of time:New England - Tom BradyOakland - Rich GannonNew England - Tom BradyNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningPittsburgh- Big BenWith the sole exception of Oakland in 2002, it's been all the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. During this time period, there have been stretches where other AFC teams have been very good: the Ravens, Chargers, and most recently the Jets come to mind. Yet these other teams can't seem to get over the hump and into the final game. Anyone have an opinion as to why this is? Are New England, Pittsburgh and Indy simply better franchises? Are they just lucky to have ended up with elite QBs? And why can't any team repeat in the NFC? Thoughts?

See a trend? I do.

Bingo!

That seems to be a big part of the answer, I would agree, but let me play devil's advocate.One could argue that the Steelers were dominant championship teams more because of their defense than their offense.

 

[timschochet]

I was thinking about this the last few days. Look at the last 10 NFC teams in the Superbowl:St. Louis - Kurt WarnerTampa Bay - Brad JohnsonCarolina - Jake DelhommePhiladelphia - McNabbSeattle - Matt HasselbeckChicago - GrossmanNew York - Eli ManningArizona - Kurt WarnerNew Orleans - Drew BreesGreen Bay - Aaron Rodgers10 Superbowls, 10 different teams.Now take a look at the AFC over the same period of time:New England - Tom BradyOakland - Rich GannonNew England - Tom BradyNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningNew England - Tom BradyPittsburgh - Big BenIndianapolis - Peyton ManningPittsburgh- Big BenWith the sole exception of Oakland in 2002, it's been all the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. During this time period, there have been stretches where other AFC teams have been very good: the Ravens, Chargers, and most recently the Jets come to mind. Yet these other teams can't seem to get over the hump and into the final game. Anyone have an opinion as to why this is? Are New England, Pittsburgh and Indy simply better franchises? Are they just lucky to have ended up with elite QBs? And why can't any team repeat in the NFC? Thoughts?

See a trend? I do.

Bingo!

That seems to be a big part of the answer, I would agree, but let me play devil's advocate.One could argue that the Steelers were dominant championship teams more because of their defense than their offense.

The problem with this argument is that the Steelers had equally good defenses in the 90s but only got to one SB and had multiple failures. Ben Roethlisberger is not Neil O'Donnell or Kordell.

 

[The Jerk]

One could argue that the Steelers were dominant championship teams more because of their defense than their offense.

I've been waiting for this. Normally, any even indirect suggestions that Roethlisberger is anywhere near an elite QB tend to bring a torrent of similar comments. So far, this thread had avoided that typical progression.Personally, I don't place Ben at the Brady level,and I don't understand why many fellow Steeler fans try to do so. However, in the past I have argued that the Steelers defense has not changed that much in production between 2001 and now (or one could argue, since 1992), but two Lombardis, three SB appearances, and four AFCC appearances have occurred since 2004. And I also argue that most of the usual top QBs in every poll (Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rivers) would have difficulty if they had the Steelers porous OL in front of them. (Rodgers is a notable exception.) Love him or hate him, Ben plays a different game.Having said all that, I think you're right to bring up this element to the discussion, STC.In fact, I'll raise you and add that the Colts championship came with a strong defensive showing pretty much throughout the playoffs, including key stops in the high-scoring AFCC comeback. And despite much gaudier stats, Brady has not celebrated a championship since the veteran Patriots defense of 2001-2004 began its turnover in earnest.Not surprisingly, it takes a full team effort to win the championship. Rodgers got the lion's share of attention last year, and he deserved a lot of it, but except for the Atlanta eruption, the Packers offense scored 21 (Philly), 14 (Chicago) and 24 (Pitt) points in the postseason. That's slightly less than 20 ppg, and in all three games, the defense made late stops. The Packers won as a team, like the Patriots, Steelers and Colts before them.Most of the other NFC champs since 2000 all led with defense, too. Tampa in 2002, The Giants in 2007 holding the Patriots to 14 points. Even the 2009 Saints held on with a pick-6 while holding a 7 point lead over the Colts. For that matter, the high-flying 1999 Rams needed a gritty defensive NFCC win over TB and a last-play tackle at the 1 to win their Lombardi Trophy.