ptr77 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 The NFC is severely lacking at the top. I agree with OWUeagleMD, no nfc team has what it takes to take any division in the afc. The texans could come here and win the nfc south or the nfc west. The cowboys and packers could put pressure on a team like the steelers but playing the ravens and steelers defenses twice in a year would be ugly, and the browns and bengals love shoot outs. The difference is that the patriots, colts, and even the steelers and chargers (yes i know they lost to GB early on) to a smaller extent would own the entire NFC imo. The AFC has a bunch of bottom dwellers too, miami, the jets, bills, raiders, bungles (get a defense already). Also the NFC East is strong but the AFC South may be even stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy8467 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 In those 8 years, the Redskins are 2-3. The Boys are 0-3. Really doesn't help your argument. True true, I was just trying to give Tr1 a hard time. Quite frankly since neither team has been past past the divisional round in so long it seems kind of pointless to argue about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yes, NY had a magical run, but against a healthy Brady I think it would have ended in the SB. I don't believe for one second that the outcome of the Super Bowl had anything to do with the health of Tom Brady. He wasn't the one blocking for himself. That pressure was there whether Brady was healthy or not. He wasn't getting away from that Giants' DLine no matter how healthy he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HapHaszard Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 NFC Seeds (in order)1. Cowboys 2. Green Bay 3. Seattle 4. Tampa Bay 5. New York 6. Washington AFC 1. New England 2. Indianapolis 3. San Diego 4. Pittsburgh 5. Jacksonville 6. Tennessee I consider Tennessee equal to Washington, but on paper, the afc's top five are much better than the NFCs. Yes, NY had a magical run, but against a healthy Brady I think it would have ended in the SB. As to the #1 and #2 seeds in the NFC, I'm still shocked, even as well as NY was playing, that they both lost at home. Almost impossible to believe. And when Brett retires, GB will become average unless Rogers (sp?) is phenomenal off the bench. pf And yet the #5 seed in the NFC beat the #1 seed in the AFC in the Super Bowl. The Giants Defense made the Patriots look ordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 NFC Seeds (in order)1. Cowboys 2. Green Bay 3. Seattle 4. Tampa Bay 5. New York 6. Washington AFC 1. New England 2. Indianapolis 3. San Diego 4. Pittsburgh 5. Jacksonville 6. Tennessee I consider Tennessee equal to Washington, but on paper, the afc's top five are much better than the NFCs. Yes, NY had a magical run, but against a healthy Brady I think it would have ended in the SB. As to the #1 and #2 seeds in the NFC, I'm still shocked, even as well as NY was playing, that they both lost at home. Almost impossible to believe. And when Brett retires, GB will become average unless Rogers (sp?) is phenomenal off the bench. pf I have to disagree with you there. I think the Colts and Patriots would be the clear favorites if there were a cross-conference playoffs, but after that it's a toss-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcnativenerd Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 It's kinda weird about football. Through the 80's and 90's, the NFC was THE conference to reckon with. Now, the AFC is considered to be the better of the two. I guess it's just a pendulum...like everyone thing else in sports and life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisit1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 NFC East > Rest of NFCAgree. NFC East is arguably the best division in football. We're the most competitive division in the NFC. The AFC South is the most competitive division in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 ']I don't believe for one second that the outcome of the Super Bowl had anything to do with the health of Tom Brady. He wasn't the one blocking for himself. That pressure was there whether Brady was healthy or not. He wasn't getting away from that Giants' DLine no matter how healthy he was. Course you don't believe that - you're a giants fan! There were times when Brady had all the time in the world, and couldn't complete a normally simple throw he makes all the time (the out route to Moss in the endzone is a prime example). I could be wrong, but to me it looked like his throwing mechanics were affected by the ankle. JMO Doesn't matter b/c Giants overcame injuries and won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scyber Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 We're the most competitive division in the NFC. The AFC South is the most competitive division in the NFL. I disagree. How can you say that division is the most competitive when one of the teams in the division has NEVER had a winning record in its existence? Put the Texans in the NFC East and every other team has 2 more wins. You can't say that about any team in the NFC East moving to the AFC south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I disagree. How can you say that division is the most competitive when one of the teams in the division has NEVER had a winning record in its existence? Put the Texans in the NFC East and every other team has 2 more wins. You can't say that about any team in the NFC East moving to the AFC south. I think the Texans of last year were a better team than both the Eagles and the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'SKINSRICH Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 NFC East > Rest of NFC You are correct, sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I think the Texans of last year were a better team than both the Eagles and the Redskins. On what do you base this statement? How many Texan games did you see? How much film of theirs have you watched? They lost to the Falcons, for crying out loud. They were 8-8 and that was their best season ever. They went 1-5 in their division and that win was against a Jacksonville team that was indeed resting their starters (unlike what the Cowboys did against the Redskins), having completely sewn up playoff position. Their only other win against a team with a winning record was against a suspect Buccaneer team (for my money the worst team in the playoffs). Yet you believe they were better than the Eagles and Redskins because, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 On what do you base this statement? A limited impression How many Texan games did you see? A few. How much film of theirs have you watched? Same amount as I've watched on the Eagles and Redskins (and the same amount you've watched on the three teams): none.They lost to the Falcons, for crying out loud. They were 8-8 and that was their best season ever. Not sure what their past has to do with my assespment of them at present. They went 1-5 in their division. They play in the best division in football. and that win was against a Jacksonville team that was indeed resting their starters (unlike what the Cowboys did against the Redskins), having completely sewn up playoff position. Their only other win against a team with a winning record was against a suspect Buccaneer team (for my money the worst team in the playoffs). The Bucs and Redskins were equally undeserving of making the playoffs. Yet you believe they were better than the Eagles and Redskins because, why? Because they went 8-8, which is the same record as the Eagles and one game worse than the Redskins, in a superior conference and a superior division. Based on personel, I think they are a fair degree better than both the Eagles and the Redskins on defense. On offense, they played a bit above their personel, being that they were without Andre Johnson for essentially the whole year. I just see them as a pretty competitive team, a team that, in the NFC, would have unquestionably made the playoffs. I also think Cleveland, Denver, and Buffalo would have made the playoffs with relative ease in the NFC. Terrible AFC teams like Kansas City and Baltimore I think would probably be very competitive in the NFC. Don't know what else to say. I think we suck. That's why I never get too low about the Eagles right now... even with as many holes as we have, we've only got a few average teams between us and a Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I also think Cleveland, Denver, and Buffalo would have made the playoffs with relative ease in the NFC. Terrible AFC teams like Kansas City and Baltimore I think would probably be very competitive in the NFC.Don't know what else to say. I think we suck. That's why I never get too low about the Eagles right now... even with as many holes as we have, we've only got a few average teams between us and a Super Bowl. Come on your giving the NFC no credit at all. Cleveland, Denver and Buffalo would lose just as much being the NFC as they would in the AFC. And you think Kansas City and Baltimore would be competitive in the NFC:doh: The AFC is only stronger because of 2 people, Peyton Manning (Colts) and Tom Brady( Patriots). And the only reason a lot of the teams in the AFC are stronger at some points is due to the fact there geared to stop those 2 teams. Otherwise the AFC by large had more mediocure teams and even had 1 team that went 1-15. Can you say the same about the NFC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Most overanalyzed subject going today. This is simply a game of fate (regarding which draft picks fall to NFC/AFC) and nothing more. To wit: if you flip a coin and it comes up "heads" 20 times in a row, does that increase the chance of "tails" coming up in the next flip? NO. It's still, and always, just a 50-50 chance proposition. This whole NFC/AFC is an entirely media invented topic to keep you interested and tuned in. Get over it. The game has always had streaks and this is just one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Most overanalyzed subject going today. This is simply a game of fate (regarding which draft picks fall to NFC/AFC) and nothing more. To wit: if you flip a coin and it comes up "heads" 20 times in a row, does that increase the chance of "tails" coming up in the next flip? NO. It's still, and always, just a 50-50 chance proposition. This whole NFC/AFC is an entirely media invented topic to keep you interested and tuned in. Get over it. The game has always had streaks and this is just one of them. Certainly it goes without saying that this is nothing more than a streak that will soon come to an end. I still don't understand why this is a "media invented topic." You realize that 6 teams from the NFC make the playoffs, and 6 teams from the AFC make the playoffs. Well, isn't it a relevant topic, then, that one conference is far more competitive (at present) than the other, despite the fact that they put the same number of teams in the playoffs? "Reversion to the mean" has nothing to do with it really. Unless, of course, there is someone out there who believes the AFC will ALWAYS be better than the NFC, since it is so currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Come on your giving the NFC no credit at all. You are correct. I seen no reason to. Cleveland, Denver and Buffalo would lose just as much being the NFC as they would in the AFC. And you think Kansas City and Baltimore would be competitive in the NFC:doh: Definitely, especially Baltimore.The AFC is only stronger because of 2 people, Peyton Manning (Colts) and Tom Brady( Patriots). And the only reason a lot of the teams in the AFC are stronger at some points is due to the fact there geared to stop those 2 teams. Otherwise the AFC by large had more mediocure teams and even had 1 team that went 1-15. Can you say the same about the NFC? No, but Miami wouldn't have gone 1-15 if they played in the NFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VA Skins Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I agree with Tom (Giants Fan), there was nothing wrong with Brady. His last two throws proved that, both went for about 70 yards and were accurate. The reason he missed a few open receivers during the game was that for the first time this year he was getting pounded. What that does to a quarterback is that it disrupts his inner clock, makes him rush his throws ever so slightly and messes up the timing on the plays. However IMHO, if we are going to compete next year, we need to figure out a way to stop the Giants (and other teams if applicable) pass rush and and give JC or TC time to throw. And while we at it, limit Eli's, Romo sits to pee's,et al time to throw, just like the Giants did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 ']I don't believe for one second that the outcome of the Super Bowl had anything to do with the health of Tom Brady. He wasn't the one blocking for himself. That pressure was there whether Brady was healthy or not. He wasn't getting away from that Giants' DLine no matter how healthy he was. AGreed. The VaGiants were just the better team that day. No excuses nor questions about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Certainly it goes without saying that this is nothing more than a streak that will soon come to an end.I still don't understand why this is a "media invented topic." You realize that 6 teams from the NFC make the playoffs, and 6 teams from the AFC make the playoffs. Well, isn't it a relevant topic, then, that one conference is far more competitive (at present) than the other, despite the fact that they put the same number of teams in the playoffs? "Reversion to the mean" has nothing to do with it really. Unless, of course, there is someone out there who believes the AFC will ALWAYS be better than the NFC, since it is so currently. I'm not denying that, overall, the AFC has the edge...at this moment in time. I just think the subject really is just completely over-analyzed. The players, coaches and even the owners don't give a rip about it and neither should the fans. Hey, I guess it's good water cooler talk tho'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scyber Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Well in intra-conference play the result was NFC was 32-32 against the AFC in the regular season. So I am not sure where this clear advantage is seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahoo Hoosier Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Any time this happens in your conference, its clearly not a joke. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Any time this happens in your conference, its clearly not a joke. :doh: Not true at all. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins77 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Unfortunately, the pukes' playoff performances are dragging the division down. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Dude I love your cowboy bashing posts in a non-gay way (not that theres anything wrong with being gay). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.