Jump to content

Why do people think the NFC is so much better this year when it's really not?


Bolts223

Recommended Posts

The justification I hear is that the NFC is more exciting/unpredictable/competitive and therefore it's a stronger conference.

But really why do people confuse more competitive with stronger or better?

I think the AFC's top/elite teams (Ravens, Pats, Chiefs) are a tad bit better than the NFC's top/elite teams (49ers, Packers, Saints)

I think the NFC's good/playoff caliber teams (Seahawks, Vikings) are a tad bit better than the AFC's good/playoff caliber teams (Bills/Texans)

So yes, the NFC having slightly worse elite teams and slightly better good teams does make it "more competitive" but that doesn't mean it's stronger. The elite teams are still part of the conference after all.

Each conference will have a sort of undeserving team make the postseason. In the NFC it will be whoever wins the NFC East (Cowboys/Eagles) and in the AFC it will be whoever gets that second wild card. (Steeelers/Titans/really outside chance of it being the Raiders)

Then after that each conference has it's share of average to bad teams like the Colts, Broncos, Chargers, Jets, Browns, Jaguars in the AFC and the Panthers, Falcons, Cardinals, Rams, Lions, Bears and Bucs in the NFC.

Each conference has two flat out atrocious teams in it. The Dolphins/Bengals in the AFC and the Giants/Redskins in the NFC.

 

Anyways, why is the NFC considered so far superior? The head to head between the conferences this year was 33-31 in the NFC's favor. Even if you wanna argue the NFC is slightly slightly better it's completely negligible. It's more competitive, but I think that says more about the quality of the top teams in the AFC more than it does the rest of the AFC.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much of it comes from where things stood earlier in the year. If you think back to like the mid-point of the season, the Cowboys looked like a force in the NFC, the Rams still looked playoff bound, the Panthers had a winning record, even the Lions were in pretty solid shape at 3-4-1. In addition to all the teams that still look good being good (49ers, Seahawks, Packers, Saints, Vikings.) So it looked like you had 6 or 7 top level teams in the NFC, along with some competitive ones in Carolina and Detroit, and Arizona looked on the rise around that point.

At the same time in the AFC, Lamar had had a very human stretch against KC, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. KC and Pittsburgh were starting backups. The Titans didn't even look competent, let alone threatening. And no one really trusted Buffalo. So it looked like the Pats and then a couple passable teams in Baltimore, Houston, and Indy.

Things have since very heavily swung in the AFC's favor. Dallas, Carolina, and Detroit all tanked. Russell Wilson has dropped off a bit while Jackson has risen to superstar status. Mahomes is back and healthy and the Chiefs have something resembling a defense. Tannehill rejuvenated the Titans. Buffalo has earned some more permanent respect.

I think it's just a case of opinions being slightly behind and slow to readjust. Because early in the year, the NFC absolutely did look superior. Teams have just trended in opposite directions.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid way through the year the NFC looked miles and miles ahead of the AFC. Now it kinda looks on par... very much impressed with the AFC now. I haven’t been this excited for a NFL playoffs in like a decade. 

Here are my power rankings entering the playoffs: 

1. Saints

2. Ravens

3. Patriots (yep.. BB and Tom in the playoffs)

4. Seahawks

5. 49ers

6. Packers

7. Texans

8. Vikings

9. Chiefs

10. Bills

11. Titans

Titans may not even make the playoffs but man have they surged and Tannehil and look great. They are a AFCCG sleeper if they get in. 

All 11 of these teams look great! Really great. 

NFC looks better than the AFC overall. But much closer than it was. 

Edited by BayRaider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Mid way through the year the NFC looked miles and miles ahead of the AFC. Now it kinda looks on par... very much impressed with the AFC now. I haven’t been this excited for a NFL playoffs in like a decade. 

Here are my power rankings entering the playoffs: 

1. Saints

2. Ravens

3. Patriots (yep.. BB and Tom in the playoffs)

4. Seahawks

5. 49ers

6. Packers

7. Texans

8. Vikings

9. Chiefs

10. Bills

11. Titans

Titans may not even make the playoffs but man have they surged and Tannehil and look great. They are a AFCCG sleeper if they get in. 

All 11 of these teams look great! Really great. 

NFC looks better than the AFC overall. But much closer than it was. 

Not sure I can agree with the Saints being 1, especially since they may not even get a Bye. Getting to the SB without a Bye is insanely difficult and only like 10/58 teams to make the SB since 1990 (When the modern playoff format was added) have played in the wild card round.

When you also consider that Brees/Peyton are 1-5 on the road in the playoffs, it becomes an even bigger concern of them being able to make the SB unless the NFC goes through New Orleans. (Which doesn't seem too likely at this point)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you seen the combined records of all of the teams in the NFC? It's possible we have a 5 way tie at 12-4. 

Niners 12-3

Saints 12-3

Packers 11-3 

Vikings 10-4

Seahawks 11-4 

 

What's astounding is that you need to realize that these teams have basically played each other and that someone has to lose. Saints Packers both lost to the niners. Niners lost to Seattle. Vikings lost to Seattle and greenbay. Seahawks lost to the saints. 

So, out of a combined 54-17, SIX losses came against each other. Meaning these 5 teams are a combined 48-11 against the rest of the league. That's a winning percentage of .827 which is the equivalent of going 13-3. So, it's like having FIVE THIRTEEN AND THREE TEAMS IN THE SAME CONFERENCE 

look at Minnesota right now. They could be the #2 seed or the #6 seed. Not even #5! They could be #6

Edited by N4L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, N4L said:

have you seen the combined records of all of the teams in the NFC? It's possible we have a 5 way tie at 12-4. 

Niners 12-3

Saints 12-3

Packers 11-3 

Vikings 10-4

Seahawks 11-4 

 

What's astounding is that you need to realize that these teams have basically played each other and that someone has to lose. Saints Packers both lost to the niners. Niners lost to Seattle. Vikings lost to Seattle and greenbay. Seahawks lost to the saints. 

So, out of a combined 54-17, SIX losses came against each other. Meaning these 5 teams are a combined 48-11 against the rest of the league. That's a winning percentage of .827 which is the equivalent of going 13-3. So, it's like having FIVE THIRTEEN AND THREE TEAMS IN THE SAME CONFERENCE 

look at Minnesota right now. They could be the #2 seed or the #6 seed. Not even #5! They could be #6

And the Ravens beat the 49ers and Seahawks.

The Chiefs beat the Vikings with Matt Moore and nearly beat the Packers with Matt Moore.

The Patriots are the Patriots and went 4-0 against a (terrible) NFC East.

The Texans very nearly beat the Saints in New Orleans. 

The Ravens, Chiefs and Pats and Bills and Texans have also nearly played each of the others and they could all possibly finish with 11+ wins.

So I'm not really sure what your point is?

I think the Ravens/Pats/Chiefs trio is slightly better than the 49ers/Saints/Packers

I think that the Vikings/Seahawks are slightly better than the Texans/Bills, but not by that much.

So yes - the NFC will seem more competitive because top 3 NFC teams aren't quite as good as the top 3 AFC teams but the #4 and #5 teams are slightly better than the #4 and #5 AFC teams. Slightly better underdog vs a slightly worse favorite rather than a slightly better favorite vs a slightly weaker underdog.

It makes the NFC more competitive sure, but not necessarily stronger. 

It's also worth noting that the NFC East is an historically terrible division and it's 25% of the NFC. The NFC South is also pretty trash outside of the Saints.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, N4L said:

have you seen the combined records of all of the teams in the NFC? It's possible we have a 5 way tie at 12-4. 

Niners 12-3

Saints 12-3

Packers 11-3 

Vikings 10-4

Seahawks 11-4 

 

What's astounding is that you need to realize that these teams have basically played each other and that someone has to lose. Saints Packers both lost to the niners. Niners lost to Seattle. Vikings lost to Seattle and greenbay. Seahawks lost to the saints. 

So, out of a combined 54-17, SIX losses came against each other. Meaning these 5 teams are a combined 48-11 against the rest of the league. That's a winning percentage of .827 which is the equivalent of going 13-3. So, it's like having FIVE THIRTEEN AND THREE TEAMS IN THE SAME CONFERENCE 

look at Minnesota right now. They could be the #2 seed or the #6 seed. Not even #5! They could be #6

You could do the same calculation for the AFC. The top 5 teams have 19 losses instead of 17. 9 of those losses came against each other. So those 5 teams are 47-10 against the rest of the league. Winning percentage of .825. Hey, that's like 5 13-3 teams in the same conference! Woah!

After tonight, the top 5 AFC teams will have one win less than the top 5 NFC teams. The only thing you put in those post that doesn't apply basically identically in both conferences is the bit about Minnesota potentially being a 6 seed. But that's only because the NFC is going to have an 8-8 or 9-7 #4 seed, with one crap division, while the AFC's talent is more evenly spread out in each division, meaning the mediocre team is going to just get the #6 seed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

The justification I hear is that the NFC is more exciting/unpredictable/competitive and therefore it's a stronger conference.

But really why do people confuse more competitive with stronger or better?

I think the AFC's top/elite teams (Ravens, Pats, Chiefs) are a tad bit better than the NFC's top/elite teams (49ers, Packers, Saints)

I think the NFC's good/playoff caliber teams (Seahawks, Vikings) are a tad bit better than the AFC's good/playoff caliber teams (Bills/Texans)

So yes, the NFC having slightly worse elite teams and slightly better good teams does make it "more competitive" but that doesn't mean it's stronger. The elite teams are still part of the conference after all.

Each conference will have a sort of undeserving team make the postseason. In the NFC it will be whoever wins the NFC East (Cowboys/Eagles) and in the AFC it will be whoever gets that second wild card. (Steeelers/Titans/really outside chance of it being the Raiders)

Then after that each conference has it's share of average to bad teams like the Colts, Broncos, Chargers, Jets, Browns, Jaguars in the AFC and the Panthers, Falcons, Cardinals, Rams, Lions, Bears and Bucs in the NFC.

Each conference has two flat out atrocious teams in it. The Dolphins/Bengals in the AFC and the Giants/Redskins in the NFC.

 

Anyways, why is the NFC considered so far superior? The head to head between the conferences this year was 33-31 in the NFC's favor. Even if you wanna argue the NFC is slightly slightly better it's completely negligible. It's more competitive, but I think that says more about the quality of the top teams in the AFC more than it does the rest of the AFC.

 

good post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...