"The NFC Is Clearly The Dominant Conference" - Fact or Fiction?

[PatsFans.com Article]

"The NFC Is Clearly The Dominant Conference" - Fact or Fiction?
By: John Morgan

Many fans and media members have been stating that the NFC is clearly the dominant conference in the NFL, to the point where it is declared with such conviction to imply that the subject is not even open for debate. But is that an accurate opinion?...

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

 

[fair catch fryar]

Silly, bored sports writers. The NFC is the flavor of the month and deserves to be due to their Superbowl win, but to say "dominant" is just stupid.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Packers
Saints
SF
Cowboys ( think they will be really good next year)
Giants (maybe)

AFC

Pats
Ravens
Pitt
Texans
Chargers (maybe)

 

[brdmaverick]

It certainly helps that they won four straight Super Bowls, but based on last season alone that was definitely true.

We all know the Pats would have had a much tougher time getting to the Super Bowl if they were in the NFC? Why, because the NFC is better.

If Peyton comes back healthy (and in the AFC) then that certainly helps in trying to even things up.

 

[Ron Sellers]

It certainly helps that they won four straight Super Bowls, but based on last season alone that was definitely true.

We all know the Pats would have had a much tougher time getting to the Super Bowl if they were in the NFC? Why, because the NFC is better.

If Peyton comes back healthy (and in the AFC) then that certainly helps in trying to even things up.

How is the NFC better, other than the final score of the final game which was determined by the final play?

If Boise State had a chance to play for the BCS championship and had defeated LSU, would that make the Mountain West better than the SEC?

Props to the Giants for winning, but I don't see how the NFC is better than the AFC. Three teams with bad defenses (Packers, Saints, Lions), another with a bad offense (49ers) and a gaudy record in a bad division, one that clicked at the right time (Giants) and then a group of even bigger question marks (Cowboys, Falcons, Eagles, Bears). The AFC is similar, but it's more good defenses/meh offenses (Steelers, Ravens, Bengals, Texans) than good offenses/meh defenses (Pats), followed by their own question marks (Jets, Titans, Chargers, Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, Dolphins).

I don't see one conference being any better than the other one either last year, or looking ahead to next year.

 

[Rob0729]

I would say the NFC has more of the top teams than the AFC, but I don't know if it is a dominance. They won the head to head overall battle including the Super Bowl, but I still think there are several teams in the AFC who are good enough to beat any team in the NFC.

 

[supafly]

I would say the NFC has more of the top teams than the AFC, but I don't know if it is a dominance. They won the head to head overall battle including the Super Bowl, but I still think there are several teams in the AFC who are good enough to beat any team in the NFC.

Agreed....

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Using superlatives incorrectly I would say.

Do they appear to have more teasm that seem better? By news boradcast terms they seem to and I would have to agree, but I don't see any teams without flaws.

Dominant would be (to me) like the Patriots run against the AFCE or Buffalo specifically. You need to have a huge discrepancy in winning % to be considered dominant. At this poitn they just may have a slight advantage.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Can't believe someone said "Giants (maybe)"

You really going to tell me that if the Giants are alive come playoff time next year you're counting them out? Not me.

The Giants' identity is wrapped around that slow-start, road-warrior, underdog mentality. Two of the last four SBs... I'd say lose the "maybe." Reminds me of the "yeah the Patriots just keep getting lucky over and over again every year" stuff from the 2001-2004 era. (Remember how the Colts and the Steelers were "really" better, but just couldn't win anything?)

 

[patsfan-1982]

the AFC has had the same 3 or 4 teams at the top for the last 10 years so come playoff time they know each other very well and its just like a Division game very physical and after playing 2 or 3 games like that the AFC winner come in all banged up and have given all they had just to get there,


the NFC is a whole new story it's a team that gets hot late and gets over looked by the top NFC teams because they dont know what they can really do be cause they have only been playing great for the last 2 or 3 games, with the AFC you have awhole season of tape on the pats steelers. ravens and colts of them playing there best so you know what you need to stop to win

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's all about QB play and for the last decade the AFC dominated because of consistent elite level play from Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers. The NFC began to rebound when NO signed Brees, AZ rehabbed Warner (for a short time) and now Rodgers and finally Eli emerging and possibly Bradford about to coinciding with the the Brady injury and now the Manning injury and all of Ben's various owwies and whatever was going on with Rivers. Ryan and Flacco remain tossups who cancel each other out. It's cyclical. If Manning rebounds and SD ever overcomes eliteitis (although Romo could cancel that out) things could revert closer to the norm. Mediots likely feel Vick also tips the balance but I'm not buying that until it actually, you know, happens. And Luck could cancel him out, although who know - if Manning rebounds in the NFC they may indeed be perceived as dominant going forward based largely as it always is on QB play. NFC defenses used to look great but the fact was until about 3-4 years ago they weren't matching up against well QB'd teams.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This article makes many good points, but "All Things Pats" needs to hire an editor and Mr. Morgan should dust off his College theme writing notes. Talk about losing half your audience because you use 2,500+ words to say what you could say in a nice OpEd length 500--750. But, it probably would have taken a lot longer to write the shorter piece, so he went with the fire-hose approach.

That said, Morgan did do some very good research. But, he "buried the lead" about two thirds of the way down the piece. I reproduce it here (shortened, of course) for those who didn't bother to read all the way down:

"So how does that compare to the current ‘clearly dominant’ NFC? In 2011 the NFC won 33 inter-conference games compared to 31 by the AFC: one game away from a perfect 50/50 split. The AFC won more inter-conference games in each of the three previous years, and 2007 was even. Over the five-year span the AFC has won 17 more games...

If instead you want to focus on only the top teams, then there may perhaps be an argument there appears to be a shift – but not enough to call the NFC ‘clearly dominant‘. In 2011 the top four NFC teams won a combined four more games than the top four AFC teams, going 51-13 to 47-17. Expand that to the top six teams and it was only a five-win difference, 70-26 to 65-31. Even aided by Green Bay’s 15-1 season that’s not exactly much of a delta. If you look at the top four teams over the five-year period the AFC has won seven more games. When you look at the top six teams in that time frame the AFC has won ten more games...‘."

If I had the time, I'd be interested in looking underneath those stats and checking the Offense and Defense points and yards.

Interesting piece.

 

[jcdavey]

fact

nfc is tougher straight up

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Silly, bored sports writers. The NFC is the flavor of the month and deserves to be due to their Superbowl win, but to say "dominant" is just stupid.

LOL

Packers
Saints
Giants(2)

They've won 4 of 5 SB's...that's called dominant.


2011
-7 of top 10 teams are NFC for TOTAL Yards on Offense
-7 of Top 10 teams are NFC in Passing
-6 of Top 10 teams are NFC in rushing
-7 of the top 10 passing leaders in 2011 are NFC QB's

Get a clue

 

[Ron Sellers]

LOL

Packers
Saints
Giants(2)

They've won 4 of 5 SB's...that's called dominant.

Like the article said if your one and only criteria is super bowl winners, then yes; but how does that one game mean that the entire conference is better? Check out the excerpt two posts above by PatsFanSince74; if the NFC was dominant, wouldn't there be a big discrepancy in the results of inter-conference games?

2011
-7 of top 10 teams are NFC for TOTAL Yards on Offense
-7 of Top 10 teams are NFC in Passing
-6 of Top 10 teams are NFC in rushing
-7 of the top 10 passing leaders in 2011 are NFC QB's

Only looking at offense works well in fantasy football, but these playoffs proved that defense still matters. Here are some more 2011 team stats:

• 6 of the top 7 teams for Total Yards on Defense are from the AFC
• 5 of the top 6, 7 of the top 9, and 9 of the top 12 teams are from the AFC for Points per Game on Defense
• 8 of the top 9, including the top 6 teams in Defensive Passing Yardage are from the AFC
• 3 of the top 4 and 6 of the top 10 teams in Defensive Rushing Yardage are from the AFC

Get a clue

You may want to reconsider that final statement.

 

[fair catch fryar]

LOL

Packers
Saints
Giants(2)

They've won 4 of 5 SB's...that's called dominant.


2011
-7 of top 10 teams are NFC for TOTAL Yards on Offense
-7 of Top 10 teams are NFC in Passing
-6 of Top 10 teams are NFC in rushing
-7 of the top 10 passing leaders in 2011 are NFC QB's

Get a clue

So you think dominance is determined because they won 4 of 5 SB's, all of which came down to the 4th quarter or even the final drive. It all depends on what your definition of dominance is. IMO, Dominance was the run the NFC had over the AFC for 10 years in the mid-80s to the mid-90s. I just don't see that trend over the last 5 years, but go ahead and assume you know-it-all and have all the clues. It's no wonder everyone on this message board thinks your an ***hat.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Tony Romo was the sixth best quarterback in the NFC last year behind Rodgers, Brees, Stafford, E Manning, and Ryan. He would have easily been the second best QB in the AFC with 31 TDs and a 102.5 QB rating.

Joe Flacco is often brought up when talking about "good" AFC quarterbacks. In the NFC, I'd rank him behind all the QBs I just mentioned, plus Newton, Bradford, A Smith, Cutler, and maybe Freeman.

So, Flacco is probably the 4th or 5th best QB in the AFC and would be almost dead last in the NFC. Matt Schaub is a pro-bowler in the AFC and at best #10 in the NFC.

I could go on and on. The NFC is way better than the AFC. It's a QB-drive league. If Rivers and P Manning do not regain their form, you are basically looking at the Buffalo Patriots for the next few years, although I don't think that just because the NFC is better than the AFC, it means anything about how the top teams stack up against each other.

 

[The Gr8est]

Tony Romo was the sixth best quarterback in the NFC last year behind Rodgers, Brees, Stafford, E Manning, and Ryan. He would have easily been the second best QB in the AFC with 31 TDs and a 102.5 QB rating.

Joe Flacco is often brought up when talking about "good" AFC quarterbacks. In the NFC, I'd rank him behind all the QBs I just mentioned, plus Newton, Bradford, A Smith, Cutler, and maybe Freeman.

So, Flacco is probably the 4th or 5th best QB in the AFC and would be almost dead last in the NFC. Matt Schaub is a pro-bowler in the AFC and at best #10 in the NFC.

I could go on and on. The NFC is way better than the AFC. It's a QB-drive league. If Rivers and P Manning do not regain their form, you are basically looking at the Buffalo Patriots for the next few years, although I don't think that just because the NFC is better than the AFC, it means anything about how the top teams stack up against each other.

Tony Romo.......


OK..............


regardless of what the numbers say, when I hear the name Tony Romo I think of plays like this one against the Giants last year when he sacked himself for a safety.

ROFL

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="Tony Romo is an Idiot - YouTube" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Deus Irae]

Tony Romo was the sixth best quarterback in the NFC last year behind Rodgers, Brees, Stafford, E Manning, and Ryan. He would have easily been the second best QB in the AFC with 31 TDs and a 102.5 QB rating.

Joe Flacco is often brought up when talking about "good" AFC quarterbacks. In the NFC, I'd rank him behind all the QBs I just mentioned, plus Newton, Bradford, A Smith, Cutler, and maybe Freeman.

So, Flacco is probably the 4th or 5th best QB in the AFC and would be almost dead last in the NFC. Matt Schaub is a pro-bowler in the AFC and at best #10 in the NFC.

I could go on and on. The NFC is way better than the AFC. It's a QB-drive league. If Rivers and P Manning do not regain their form, you are basically looking at the Buffalo Patriots for the next few years, although I don't think that just because the NFC is better than the AFC, it means anything about how the top teams stack up against each other.

You're overrating the NFC QBs, IMO.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Tony Romo was the sixth best quarterback in the NFC last year behind Rodgers, Brees, Stafford, E Manning, and Ryan. He would have easily been the second best QB in the AFC with 31 TDs and a 102.5 QB rating.

Joe Flacco is often brought up when talking about "good" AFC quarterbacks. In the NFC, I'd rank him behind all the QBs I just mentioned, plus Newton, Bradford, A Smith, Cutler, and maybe Freeman.

So, Flacco is probably the 4th or 5th best QB in the AFC and would be almost dead last in the NFC. Matt Schaub is a pro-bowler in the AFC and at best #10 in the NFC.

I could go on and on. The NFC is way better than the AFC. It's a QB-drive league. If Rivers and P Manning do not regain their form, you are basically looking at the Buffalo Patriots for the next few years, although I don't think that just because the NFC is better than the AFC, it means anything about how the top teams stack up against each other.

Even if what you were saying was correct (and I don't agree with it, by the way), you're comparing apples to oranges. The question isn't which conference has the best quarterbacks; if that's the only thing it took for a team to be good then Dan Marino would have several SB rings. The question is about which conference is better, or more specifically if the NFC is head and shoulders better than the AFC.

Actually the list you provided pretty much backs up my point: Newton's Panthers were 6-10, with two of those wins coming against a Tampa Bay team that mailed it in after the first month of the season, and Bradford's Rams were by far the worst team in the league in 2011.

When you state that "Matt Schaub is at best #10 in the NFC", at that point it's difficult to take you seriously.

It looks to me like the two conferences are about even, with the NFC generally having better offenses and the AFC having mostly better defenses.