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

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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.

lol... you are a huge homer and overrate the AFC. QB position is easily the most critical. In addition, the defenses you point to in the AFC are fading out. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are both aging fast. The Patriots no longer have a good defense. Houston is probably now the class of the AFC in terms of defense and balance. Where are all of these "mostly better defenses"? That is about the most subjective statement possible, yet it's hard to take me seriously?

 

[Ron Sellers]

lol... you are a huge homer and overrate the AFC. QB position is easily the most critical. In addition, the defenses you point to in the AFC are fading out. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are both aging fast. The Patriots no longer have a good defense. Houston is probably now the class of the AFC in terms of defense and balance. Where are all of these "mostly better defenses"? That is about the most subjective statement possible, yet it's hard to take me seriously?

Once again, the question is about which conference had the best teams, not the best quarterbacks.

Regarding the defenses, apparently you didn't bother to read post # 15, so with apologies to everyone else I'll re-post the primary point from it:

• 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

Personally I was looking at where teams stood as of the 2011 season because we have actual games that were played to compare, rather than trying to assume how teams might do in the future - but if you want to look at it that way we can play that guessing game as well.

Baltimore has one person on their defense that is slowing down, Ray Lewis. Ed Reed is 33 but still playing at a very high level. Nearly everyone else on that defense is 27 or younger; I would completely disagree with you on your assessment of the Ravens. However I do agree that on a level playing field in regards to how healthy each team is, then Houston is the best team in the AFC.

The NFC teams are just as flawed as the AFC teams; they are not the second coming on the Bart Starr-era Packers, Montana-era 49ers and Aikman-Irvin-Smith Cowboys.

The Packers defense is bad, especially in pass coverage, and their running game leaves a lot to be desired. The Saints defense is just as bad but at least their running backs are productive, but let's see where they sit after free agency; Drew Brees, Marques Colston, Carl Nicks, Robert Meachem, Shaun Rogers and several other contributors are all free agents. The Lions are another good-offense, bad defense team, despite all their well known names. San Francisco is the opposite: a great defense and pathetic offense featuring a putrid offensive line, a shaky QB, and mediocre pass receivers all centered around a RB who can't have much mileage left after the amount of overuse he's had the last few years.

There is no way that you, I or anyone else can accurately predict who will or won't be good next year, much less what team is going to drop and which one will rise - especially before free agency even begins. What we can compare is the two conferences as of 2011, and at this point there's not enough of a difference to declare one as being clearly better than the other.

I totally agree that the top AFC teams have flaws - but so do the NFC teams! If you're going to compare the two conferences based on who has the most fantasy football stars, I'm guessing that the NFC is probably much better. But as far as actual NFL football goes, there's not really any clear cut favorite.

 

[PatsFan24]

It is a close call. NFC might be a little better but it is not dominant. It changes every several years anyways. There was that long run of NFC titles in the 80s and 90s when they won 12 or 13 in a row. Then the AFC won 7 of 9 I think. Now the NFC is on a run. It goes back and fourth. If you look at the two CG losers, they played on Thanksgiving and the Ravens crushed the 49ers and did it without Ray Lewis. One could make a decent case the NFC is stronger but it is not dominant.