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

[Forge]

11 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Goff throwing a pick 6 would have increased our chances at winning because we'd get the ball back. Just like if Garropolo threw a better ball to Sanders and he decided to score. 

I don't know how that actually works. If the 49ers get stopped on 3rd and 16, punt the ball away, you get the ball back with less than 90 seconds remaining. Goff throws a pick 6, you're now losing, have a little over a minute to drive down the field and score a game tying touchdown. I'm not sure how that increases your chances of winning. 

[LeotheLion]

Just now, Forge said:

I don't know how that actually works. If the 49ers get stopped on 3rd and 16, punt the ball away, you get the ball back with less than 90 seconds remaining. Goff throws a pick 6, you're now losing, have a little over a minute to drive down the field and score a game tying touchdown. I'm not sure how that increases your chances of winning. 

I'm saying I'd rather Goff throw a pick 6 then never get the ball back. It's not ideal, but it was clear the game was over when Sanders caught the long pass. Having a minute to score a TD to tie increases the odds of winning since we'd have the ball. 

[Forge]

Just now, LeotheLion said:

I'm saying I'd rather Goff throw a pick 6 then never get the ball back. It's not ideal, but it was clear the game was over when Sanders caught the long pass. Having a minute to score a TD to tie increases the odds of winning since we'd have the ball. 

Oh yeah, I get that. Same way I was glad the 49ers missed the tackle and gave up the touchdown to new orleans  a few weeks ago lol. 

[stl4life07]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

No, i don't know that. That's kind of the point that @N4L was making. Both outcomes are possible, and it's certainly not a given that the Rams score which is what you are treating it as

Tell me again how well the Rams were moving the ball. 

2nd half drives: 

• -9 yards
• 1 yard
• 68 yards
• 31 yards
• 3 yards
• 41 yards

You would have gotten the ball between your own 35-40 yard line if prevailing averages from the game held. So in half the second half drives you failed to drive the ball the necessary yardage you would have needed just to get a long field goal attempt (which Zuerlein was also only 1/2 on). Everything there is about 50/50. That's pretty much the exact opposite of a sure thing. 

We aren't saying that what you are saying couldn't have occurred. We are saying that it was definitely not a sure thing. 

 

Ok thats fair enough. I was looking at the entire game plus I do believe in momentum which had the Rams made a defensive stop and got the ball back knowing they had a shot to win I would be confident they would in the same way once the Niners picked up that first 3rd and 16 it gave them momentum so even in that second 3rd and 16 there wasnt any panic setting in it was just pure confidence. 

[N4L]

57 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

Ok thats fair enough. I was looking at the entire game plus I do believe in momentum which had the Rams made a defensive stop and got the ball back knowing they had a shot to win I would be confident they would in the same way once the Niners picked up that first 3rd and 16 it gave them momentum so even in that second 3rd and 16 there wasnt any panic setting in it was just pure confidence. 

that's a far cry from saying "if the niners didn't convert two 3rd and 16s the rams would have won" 

delusional is one word I would use

[RBreezy]

1 hour ago, Kirill said:

Chiefs are going to win the super bowl.

I love Andy Reid, but I have no faith in him in January lol he'll lose in the AFCCG

[HoboRocket]

14 minutes ago, RBreezy said:

I love Andy Reid, but I have no faith in him in January lol he'll lose in the AFCCG

I mean, he coached his team into the Super Bowl last year. 

[stl4life07]

2 hours ago, N4L said:

that's a far cry from saying "if the niners didn't convert two 3rd and 16s the rams would have won" 

delusional is one word I would use

I wouldnt say delusional. I still feel like had the Rams stop the Niners on one of those 3rd and 16s they wouldve won but its easier to say they wouldnt because the situation never occurred. But hey I do see where you are coming from just because I was on that side of the situation last season when the Rams beat the Packers. So many people was saying how if Montgomery didnt fumble the ball on special teams or just didnt return the kick at all and ARod got on the field the Packers wouldve scored and won the game. I kept saying no they wouldnt just based on last season the Rams defense while they werent playing great alot of the time in the regular season they made timely plays to when it mattered the most. Thus as to why the Rams were (6-1) in games decided by 7pts or less. So again I kept telling people even if ARod got the ball the Packers still wasnt going to go down and win the game but people kept saying that they was. In theory I could say the Packers wouldnt have scored because the opportunity never presented itself. So again I can see your point of view why you dont think the Rams wouldve won even if they stopped the Niners. We will never know though. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by stl4life07

[Bolts223]

3 hours ago, Danger said:

Super Bowl Favorites: 
Baltimore

Super Bowl Contenders:
Green Bay
Kansas City
Seattle
San Francisco
New Orleans
New England

Super Bowl Dark horses:
Minnesota
Houston

Hope and a prayer:
Philadelphia
Buffalo
Tennessee/Pittsburgh

 

In that order for me.

I actually think Buffalo is a better team than Houston. If they play in the wild card round I'd lean towards Buffalo winning because I think McDermott would coach circles around BOB.

[Bolts223]

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

The NFC as a whole is still a superior conference.  Baltimore's the best team in the entire league, but the AFC as a whole couldn't compare.  

Both conferences have pretty much equal shares of good, average and bad teams.

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

 Buffalo should have beaten New England.  They had what it took to beat them, and they didn't.  

Isn't this an endorsement of the AFC? The Pats are still the Pats. As long as Tom Brady is the QB and Bill Belichick is the HC, they are always a SB contender who should never be counted out. The fact that the Bills played them close twice really just shows that the Bills are an extremely competent team.

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Tennessee is the potential dark horse in the postseason, but couldn't wrap it up against New Orleans.  

The fact that a middling team who may barely squeak into the playoffs held their own against one of the top NFC teams is also more of an endorsement of the AFC. I don't see Tennessee doing much other than (hopefully) pulling out some voodoo magic against the Chiefs like they have before in the past.

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

The only AFC team that Seattle lost to this season was in fact Baltimore.  They beat all the other AFC teams they faced in 2019.  

That's pretty much in line with what their win % is in all games considering they only played 4 AFC teams. That's .750 win % and they have a .733 win % right now. Again - I'm not really sure what your point here is. The Seahawks are also pretty banged up and I don't really see them as quite the SB contender as I did a few weeks ago. If they are able to beat SF in week 17 and get a Bye I guess anything is possible.

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Kansas City is a top tier team in the AFC, and they lost to both Green Bay and San Francisco.  

First of all they didn't even play SF. The AFC West and NFC North played this year. The two divisions deadlocked at an 8-8 head to head.

KC nearly beat the Packers with Matt Moore as their starting QB for that game. KC beat the Vikings with Matt Moore as their starting QB. 

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

When it comes down to it, you have multiple contenders for the Super Bowl from the NFC, but I think the general consensus is that the only surefire representative from the AFC conference this year is Baltimore.  

First of all: More competitive conference =/= stronger conference.

Second of all: If you actually think that it's a lock for Baltimore to go to the SB you are severely underestimating the Pats and Chiefs. I think even Houston and Buffalo are both capable of giving them a game, although I doubt they'd win.

Really in the NFC I think the 49ers and Saints are clearly the best teams. A team like Green Bay/Seattle/Minny can potentially do some damage should they get a bye, but if they don't I really don't think they can go win multiple road games to reach the SB.

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Bolts223

[Bolts223]

3 hours ago, HoboRocket said:

I know the Pro Bowl doesn't matter, but... Has the AFC ever beaten the NFC? Like... Ever? I know there were a few years where the AFC had better WRs with Antonio Brown and Nuk, but then the NFC had Julio and Odell for a while, too. Isn't the NFC better at basically every position group when you match talent like every year? And that's why the NFC wins?

I mean the AFC holds the all-time head to head for interconference games. The NFC holds a slight edge in SB's: 27-26. 

I think these are a lot more telling than pro-bowls.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Bolts223

[Bearerofnews]

3 hours ago, Kirill said:

Chiefs are going to win the super bowl.

On what version of madden? If titans make it, KC is going 1 and done.

[Kirill]

3 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

On what version of madden? If titans make it, KC is going 1 and done.

https://heavy.com/sports/2019/12/chiefs-defense-number-one-since-week-11/

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ISSA WRAP.

[HoboRocket]

33 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

I mean the AFC holds the all-time head to head for interconference games. The NFC holds a slight edge in SB's: 27-26. 

I think these are a lot more telling than pro-bowls.

And that Super Bowl record is with the Pats and Steelers doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the AFC.

Well, anyways, I'm sure that the AFC vs NFC Super Bowl record is more telling than pro bowls. And, personally, I'm not sure that the NFC IS better than the AFC this year. My point is, though, that the pro bowl is a direct manifestation of the public's view of football. Who gets in and who doesn't is based (at least in part) on who we do and don't vote for. Our view as a public is based on the most visible, not the best. The NFC for a while now has had more superstars. NFC teams just tend to have better stats. It doesn't matter if the AFC wins more, it's like the NFC has more RBs with big-time stats almost every year (Todd Gurley, Zeke, David Johnson, Christian McCaffrey, Dalvin Cook, Kamara, DeMarco Murray, Saquon Barkley, etc), more QBs with big-time stats or big-time hype (Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Cam Newton, Dak, Goff, Ryan, Stafford, Eli, Vick on the Dream Team, etc - heck, even RGIII and Kaepernick were on the billboards and Wheaties boxes early in their careers), and this year, if you look at receiving leaders, Nuk is like the only AFC dude in the top 10. And in most of the past decade, the NFC has had more superstars at the WR position (Michael Thomas, OBJ, Mike Evans, Julio Jones, Dez Bryant, Thielen, Larry Legend) than the AFC (Antonio Brown, Nuk, AJ Green). And even if they aren't HUGE superstars in a given moment (Larry, Thielen) they're huge STORIES, like with Larry's resurgence and HOF career, or Thielen's rise to where he is today. Even with the AFC having some fantastic HOF QBs (Brady, Rivers, Ben) it seems like the NFC is better at the position because there are just so many AFC teams that have been in turmoil at the position (Texans, Bills, Browns, Jets, post-Manning Broncos) or QB purgatory year in and year out (such as the Bengals [not that Dalton is bad, he just has been on a lot of bad offenses aside from his near-MVP season], Chiefs with Alex Smith, Ravens with Flacco). 

Maybe it's the way the teams play each other, I don't know. The AFC COULD cannibalize and that leads to less stats in general. But in an offense-driven league, more of the teams with the bigger offensive stats - at least in recent years - and sexier names playing for them are in the NFC. 

The one position where the AFC has consistently stood toe-to-toe with the NFC is tight end, with the AFC having Gronk and Kelce, but with Gronk's retirement and Kittle's emergence, now even that's dicey. 

Here, let me demonstrate - how many people drafted Jordan Reed in fantasy this year? He hasn't been good since 2016, but he's a recognizable name, so he continues to have relevance in fantasy football. And yes, it's silly to think that fantasy football affects actual football, but it DOES affect people's perception of football PLAYERS and when the NFC has better fantasy players, or better teams for fantasy purposes, then you'll have a lot of people believing that those NFC teams can be good. Heck, how many years now has the Bucs been the consensus dark-horse pick for a playoff team? Even though they suck, the have had the hype from fantasy football, which teams like the 2012-2017 Texans (who won three division championships in that span) didn't have. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by HoboRocket

[Bolts223]

6 minutes ago, HoboRocket said:

And that Super Bowl record is with the Pats and Steelers doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the AFC.

Well, anyways, I'm sure that the AFC vs NFC Super Bowl record is more telling than pro bowls. And, personally, I'm not sure that the NFC IS better than the AFC this year. My point is, though, that the pro bowl is a direct manifestation of the public's view of football. Who gets in and who doesn't is based (at least in part) on who we do and don't vote for. Our view as a public is based on the most visible, not the best. The NFC for a while now has had more superstars. NFC teams just tend to have better stats. It doesn't matter if the AFC wins more, it's like the NFC has more RBs with big-time stats almost every year (Todd Gurley, Zeke, David Johnson, Christian McCaffrey, Dalvin Cook, Saquon Barkley, etc), more QBs with big-time stats or big-time hype (Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Cam Newton, Dak, Goff, Ryan, Stafford, Eli, etc - heck, even RGIII and Kaepernick were on the billboards and Wheaties boxes early in their careers), and this year, if you look at receiving leaders, Nuk is like the only AFC dude in the top 10. And in most of the past decade, the NFC has had more superstars at the WR position (Michael Thomas, OBJ, Mike Evans, Julio Jones, Dez Bryant, Thielen, Larry Legend) than the AFC (Antonio Brown, Nuk, AJ Green). And even if they aren't HUGE superstars in a given moment (Larry, Thielen) they're huge STORIES, like with Larry's resurgence and HOF career, or Thielen's rise to where he is today. Even with the AFC having some fantastic HOF QBs (Brady, Rivers, Ben) it seems like the NFC is better at the position because there are just so many AFC teams that have been in turmoil at the position (Texans, Bills, Browns, Jets, post-Manning Broncos) or QB purgatory year in and year out (such as the Bengals [not that Dalton is bad, he just has been on a lot of bad offenses aside from his near-MVP season], Chiefs with Alex Smith, Ravens with Flacco). 

Maybe it's the way the teams play each other, I don't know. The AFC COULD cannibalize and that leads to less stats in general. But in an offense-driven league, more of the teams with the bigger offensive stats - at least in recent years - and sexier names playing for them are in the NFC. 

I mean if you want to ignore that the fact that the Patriots have nearly lost as many SB's as they have won, sure.

Regardless of that the Pats and Steelers have a combined 12 SB's, the Cowboys/49ers have a combined 10. It's not really that much of a difference between the top 2 franchises.