Jump to content

Does the NFC get overrated?


Bolts223

Recommended Posts

I feel like people generally consider the NFC the far superior conference. People will always cite either how much more competitive it is, and put a lot of NFC teams on a higher pedestal than AFC teams, even if there is no merit to it as it pertains to the current game.

I believe this is for a few reasons:

- NFC has a lot more teams that are considered "sexy" teams. This includes all 4 of the NFC East franchises, franchises like the Packers, Bears & 49ers. Even franchises like the Saints/Falcons/Vikings/Seahawks have a lot more sexiness to them than franchises like the Titans/Jaguars/Chargers/Bengals.

- The only real marquee franchises in the AFC are the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos. Some teams like the Raiders, Browns & Dolphins have a lot of historical significance, but both have been completely irrelevant for most of the last two decades. Even in the case of the Patriots it's all really in the last 20 years. The Patriots before Brady/Belichick were no more significant to the NFL than a team like the Texans or Panthers are now.

For these two reasons, I believe the NFC gets a bit overrated. I think a lot of people will say that the NFC is a lot more competitive, but lack the context that no team in the conference has been as good or consistent as the Patriots (Or even the Steelers) the last 20 years. Very few (if any) NFC Franchises would have achieved more success than the Ravens/Broncos/Colts in the last 15-20 years if they were in the AFC.

Furthermore, the AFC has consistently won the head to head series over the NFC the last 20+ years. Since 1996 - the AFC has beaten the NFC in head to head matchups 15 times. The NFC has beaten the AFC 5 times. (Rest are exact ties)

As far as SB's go - the AFC is also much better off. Since 1996, the AFC has won 14 SB's and the NFC 9. If you remove all the SB's the Patriots have been in it's still 8-5 in favor of the AFC.

 

Anyways am I wrong in saying this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Killashaw said:

WHAT are you saying? 

 

31 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

I feel like people generally consider the NFC the far superior conference. People will always cite either how much more competitive it is, and put a lot of NFC teams on a higher pedestal than AFC teams, even if there is no merit to it as it pertains to the current game.

I believe this is for a few reasons:

- NFC has a lot more teams that are considered "sexy" teams. This includes all 4 of the NFC East franchises, franchises like the Packers, Bears & 49ers. Even franchises like the Saints/Falcons/Vikings/Seahawks have a lot more sexiness to them than franchises like the Titans/Jaguars/Chargers/Bengals.

- The only real marquee franchises in the AFC are the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos. Some teams like the Raiders, Browns & Dolphins have a lot of historical significance, but both have been completely irrelevant for most of the last two decades. Even in the case of the Patriots it's all really in the last 20 years. The Patriots before Brady/Belichick were no more significant to the NFL than a team like the Texans or Panthers are now.

For these two reasons, I believe the NFC gets a bit overrated. I think a lot of people will say that the NFC is a lot more competitive, but lack the context that no team in the conference has been as good or consistent as the Patriots (Or even the Steelers) the last 20 years. Very few (if any) NFC Franchises would have achieved more success than the Ravens/Broncos/Colts in the last 15-20 years if they were in the AFC.

Furthermore, the AFC has consistently won the head to head series over the NFC the last 20+ years. Since 1996 - the AFC has beaten the NFC in head to head matchups 15 times. The NFC has beaten the AFC 5 times. (Rest are exact ties)

As far as SB's go - the AFC is also much better off. Since 1996, the AFC has won 14 SB's and the NFC 9. If you remove all the SB's the Patriots have been in it's still 8-5 in favor of the AFC.

 

Anyways am I wrong in saying this?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd probably say it ISN'T overrated, because over the last 2 or 3 seasons, they've definitely had the majority of the top 10 teams. This season highlights it even more than last season, it's only really NE and KC - and they happen to be arguably the two best teams. But what are the AFC equivalents to....Rams, Saints, Eagles, Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Vikings etc? It's Chargers, Steelers,  Texans, Ravens......then you're into the likes of Browns? Titans? 

AFC is very top heavy, but NFC is stacked 1-10.

But that's only a recent thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

i'd probably say it ISN'T overrated, because over the last 2 or 3 seasons, they've definitely had the majority of the top 10 teams. This season highlights it even more than last season, it's only really NE and KC - and they happen to be arguably the two best teams. But what are the AFC equivalents to....Rams, Saints, Eagles, Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Vikings etc? It's Chargers, Steelers,  Texans, Ravens......then you're into the likes of Browns? Titans? 

AFC is very top heavy, but NFC is stacked 1-10.

But that's only a recent thing

I mean it’s really too early to compare teams this year until we see more play out but just going by last year... Pats/Chiefs is pretty equal to Rams/Saints. Chargers/Colts was at least as good if not better than Bears/Cowboys, but obviously Luck retiring sorta makes the Colts nowhere near the same team this year. The Texans/Ravens were probably also equal to Eagles/Seahawks last year, if not better. As far as this season goes: I don’t really think you can say a team like the Cowboys, Vikings, Bears or Packers is definitely  going to be better than a team like the Chargers, Ravens, Texans or Steelers. The Cowboys are extremely inconsistent from year to year and just because they beat up on a probably terrible Giants team doesn’t mean that much. The Packers haven’t had a winning record since 2016. Trubisky and the Bears offense looked absolutely terrible on TNF. And the Vikings missed the playoffs last year and have serious serious issues at O-line. I’m not saying that any of these teams are bad, but I don’t think they are undisputedly better than the 2nd tier of teams in the AFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

As far as SB's go - the AFC is also much better off. Since 1996, the AFC has won 14 SB's and the NFC 9.

i love how you use 1996 as the line.

Because the NFC has wins in 13 straight super bowls between 1985-1997

 

Some of what youre saying is true, but once records begin the shake out, my feelings on which conference is better would mainly depend on the top 8 or so teams in each conference. The AFC feels like they are often top heavy with the Patriots mostly getting in. 

I am a fan of an NFC team, so i have more interest in watching NFC games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more of a competitive thing too.

The Patriots are GREAT - don't get me wrong - but the only season that they were challenged by their division was really the year Brady went down, unless you want to count the Jets upsetting them in the playoffs. Those three teams haven't been horrible, but they've essentially been the NFL versions of treadmill teams, which is worse than being horrible - they were always just good enough to miss out on elite QB prospects.

The only teams that haven't won the NFC since 2002 are the Lions, Vikings, Redskins, and Cowboys - that's 12 different teams in 17 years. Over the same span the AFC has been won by the Ravens, Steelers, Colts, Broncos, Patriots and Raiders - only 6 teams. And when you dive deeper into that, you find that the Ravens, Broncos (once) and Steelers did so without having an elite QB - so it's not like those teams were completely dominant the year they won the AFC.

 

Obviously the Patriots dominance isn't only over the AFC, so it makes there be some overall balance between the two conferences - but even this year, who is a Super Bowl contender in the AFC besides the Chiefs and Patriots? I don't see one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve said this before but people confuse a lack of stability in the NFC for it being better. The reality is the consistently good teams in the NFC will make the title game once or twice but more often than not someone gets hot out of nowhere and runs through them. 

In the AFC those host teams get flattened by the former triumvirate of Brady/Manning/Ben and once in a blue moon you get a Flacco miracle run. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

It's more of a competitive thing too.

The Patriots are GREAT - don't get me wrong - but the only season that they were challenged by their division was really the year Brady went down, unless you want to count the Jets upsetting them in the playoffs. Those three teams haven't been horrible, but they've essentially been the NFL versions of treadmill teams, which is worse than being horrible - they were always just good enough to miss out on elite QB prospects.

The only teams that haven't won the NFC since 2002 are the Lions, Vikings, Redskins, and Cowboys - that's 12 different teams in 17 years. Over the same span the AFC has been won by the Ravens, Steelers, Colts, Broncos, Patriots and Raiders - only 6 teams. And when you dive deeper into that, you find that the Ravens, Broncos (once) and Steelers did so without having an elite QB - so it's not like those teams were completely dominant the year they won the AFC.

 

Obviously the Patriots dominance isn't only over the AFC, so it makes there be some overall balance between the two conferences - but even this year, who is a Super Bowl contender in the AFC besides the Chiefs and Patriots? I don't see one.

  • The AFC has a winning record against the NFC since 2002
  • If you remove the team from each conference that has the best inter-conference record in that span (Patriots and Eagles), the AFC has a winning record vs. the NFC since 2002
  • The NFC has 8 teams with winning records vs. the AFC since 2002; the AFC has 9 teams with winning records vs. the NFC since 2002
  • Since 2002, the AFC is 10-7 in the Super Bowl. If you take away all 8 SBs that the Patriots have been in that span, the AFC is 5-4 in the SB
  • All that said, I would say the NFC has been the superior conference in the last decade or so

This season? I think it's too early, but you might add the Ravens to that list. There don't look to be a whole lot of contenders in the NFC either. Rams, maybe Cowboys, maybe Packers, maybe Eagles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...