Weakest AFC field in years?

[lillloyd]

God, what rubbish. What makes anyone believe the NFC is better? Evidence, please.

I'm one person that thinks the NFC playoff field this year is better than the AFC's, and that the NFC is trending upward. But I have to admit, my opinion was more gut than factual evidence. Your post made me do a bit of research, and here's what I came up with:

• QB play is huge in the playoffs, and the NFC's QB stable taken as a whole is much better than the AFC's relatively unhealthy and unproven group. Half of the NFC's group have won Super Bowls; half of the AFC's QBs are 1st year starters and/or rookies. Comparatively speaking, Rodgers/ Brees/ Manning/ Stafford /Ryan/ Smith reads like an All Pro team while Brady/ injured Ben /Flacco/ Yates / Dalton / Tebow reads like a JV team.

• NFC playoff teams also held a 6-2 edge against AFC playoff teams. The NFC as a whole held a modest edge (33-31) against the AFC in interconference play.

• Each team in the NFC field has momentum entering the playoffs, but the same can't be said of the AFC. In the NFC, SF has won 4 of 5 and 12 of their last 14; the Lions 3 of 4; the Saints have won 8 straight; Atlanta 3 of 4; the Giants 3 of 4; and of course GB 15 of their last 16. In the AFC, while NE has won 8 straight and both Pitt and Balt have won 6 of 7, many teams are struggling: Cincy has lost 5 of its last 8, and both Houston and Denver have lost 3 straight. Plus Pittsburgh's "momentum" is dubious since it has struggled with injuries and its offense over the past month.

• On balance the NFC field is simply healthier than the AFC field; certainly no NFC team has suffered significant injuries at key positions to the extent that Houston has, and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh.

• The NFC has won 3 of the past 4 Super Bowls.

None of this is to say that the AFC can't win the Super Bowl somehow. (It seems every year there's a major surprise or two). But I think there are only a couple of AFC teams with legit shots, and IMO the NFC field on balance is far superior.

 

[supafly]

I'm one person that thinks the NFC playoff field this year is better than the AFC's, and that the NFC is trending upward. But I have to admit, my opinion was more gut than factual evidence. Your post made me do a bit of research, and here's what I came up with:

• QB play is huge in the playoffs, and the NFC's QB stable taken as a whole is much better than the AFC's relatively unhealthy and unproven group. Half of the NFC's group have won Super Bowls; half of the AFC's QBs are 1st year starters and/or rookies. Comparatively speaking, Rodgers/ Brees/ Manning/ Stafford /Ryan/ Smith reads like an All Pro team while Brady/ injured Ben /Flacco/ Yates / Dalton / Tebow reads like a JV team.

• NFC playoff teams also held a 6-2 edge against AFC playoff teams. The NFC as a whole held a modest edge (33-31) against the AFC in interconference play.

• Each team in the NFC field has momentum entering the playoffs, but the same can't be said of the AFC. In the NFC, SF has won 4 of 5 and 12 of their last 14; the Lions 3 of 4; the Saints have won 8 straight; Atlanta 3 of 4; the Giants 3 of 4; and of course GB 15 of their last 16. In the AFC, while NE has won 8 straight and both Pitt and Balt have won 6 of 7, many teams are struggling: Cincy has lost 5 of its last 8, and both Houston and Denver have lost 3 straight. Plus Pittsburgh's "momentum" is dubious since it has struggled with injuries and its offense over the past month.

• On balance the NFC field is simply healthier than the AFC field; certainly no NFC team has suffered significant injuries at key positions to the extent that Houston has, and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh.

• The NFC has won 3 of the past 4 Super Bowls.

None of this is to say that the AFC can't win the Super Bowl somehow. (It seems every year there's a major surprise or two). But I think there are only a couple of AFC teams with legit shots, and IMO the NFC field on balance is far superior.

That's a fair enough assessment. Thanks for doing the research.

Strangely enough though, I think I remember having some discussions that the AFC was by far the superior conference last yr, as evidenced by Vegas making a futures spread of AFC -4 before the season even started. Many were jumping on this wager, particularly throughout the yr, as teams like NE, PIT, BAL, IND, and the NYJ seemed to all be very worthy opponents of any of their counterparts. After all, Atlanta was a #1 last yr, and Chicago a #2.

Many felt as though it was a pretty clear path for an AFC victory, and we saw how that turned out.

I agree with you that the NFC is certainly better not only this yr, but of late overall. However, sometimes that ends up being meaningless.

 

[NSPF]

By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.



It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.

The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.

It is fair to look at the question of "Are there teams that are able to consistently beat teams with losing records, but not able to beat teams who, based on performance against similar opponents, are similar in talent?" and by extension, whether or not the Patriots fall into that category. I don't think that this is an easy question to answer, and is certainly impossible to answer based on two games, especially since the first part of the question doesn't even have a definitive answer. In all likelihood, however, there is no statistical meaningfulness.

 

[lillloyd]

I agree, sorry if my post sounded like it was attacking you in any way at the beginning. I agree that you cannot take anything away from a Super Bowl champion and that the Steeler's victories took just as much skill/talent/greatness as any, and the 2008 Super Bowl was a great game. So yes, I did lose track of your original point and started talking about something different for some reason. Sorry about that!

No worries man! And don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the '05 Steelers to the '85 Bears or anything

I don't know how well I've articulated this, but I just think your sentiments (and frankly the sentiments of several other posters in your forums) can be critical in a way that actually takes away from the most impressive aspect of the Patriots' SB run in the early 2000s. The Pats won 3 of 4 Super Bowls in the modern era where player movement is largely unrestricted; this is simply a massive accomplishment, one that shouldn't be diminished by the fact that Carolina and Philly were one-and-done SB participants. You just won't get titanic SB matchups like you could in decades past because you simply can't keep teams together.

That's why I don't think people should ding teams for not beating dynastic juggernauts in SBs in the modern era. Teams can rise and fall much faster nowadays. Those dynasty teams of yesteryear are almost impossible to build and sustain, and therefore you're far less likely to run into an opponent like that in the SB... which is why I think fans need to "grade" today's teams a bit differently. It's just a very different game.

 

[lillloyd]

I agree with you that the NFC is certainly better not only this yr, but of late overall. However, sometimes that ends up being meaningless.

Definitely agree with you there. One only needs to look at the number of recent SB winners out of the wild card slot (Steelers '05, Giants '07, Packers '10) to know that ultimately all this analysis may in fact be rubbish But hey it's fun to look at nonetheless.

 

[lamafist]

By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.

What hypotheticals?

There is nothing hypothetical about the Colts having the best strength of victory in the entire NFL this season. They beat two teams with winning records. By your reasoning, this means they've demonstrated that they are more capable of beating good teams than the Patriots have. So, too, have the Chiefs. Again: no hypothetical here. They did in fact beat the Packers. Convincingly, at that.

Do you seriously think that the Colts and Chiefs have done more to indicate they can beat teams with a .500 record? Of course not. That's ridiculous on its face.

So obviously, winning 13 out of 16 games, over half of which victories coming against teams that finished 8-8, does more to show that the Patriots are capable of beating any team -- whether 7-9 or 9-7 -- than the 14 and 2 Colts with 2 victories over teams with winning records.

It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.

The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.

Of course it's arbitrary. The Patriots played 16 games this season. You are choosing to look at only two of them, and take from them one binary piece of information. How could that result in anything other than meaninglessness?

 

[BradyManny]

Clearly the past decade was the AFC's, and as such there were no dynasty NFC teams being thrown into the SBs for competition. So what privileges the Jake-Delhomme led Panthers (or McNabb's Eagles) over the 13-3 Seahawks of '05?

For starters, that Eagles team was in the NFC championship every damn year, so that you even cite that team as a flukey one shows a distinct lack of respect for facts. So I imagine debating with you would be an uphill battle.

And there was a potential dynasty in the NFC - it was the Rams, and the Patriots beat them.

As for the Seahawks 13-3 record, the only difference between that season and all the others surrounding it was they swept their joke of a division. If you don't think that was a down Super Bowl, I'm sorry, but it was. Even the referee of that game has mentioned he blew the game, and the winning QB had the lowest QB rating of any SB QB. Ever. It was a crappy Super Bowl.

And we haven't even talked about those Cardinals. The one the Pats trounced with Cassel just weeks before the Steelers defeated them to earn their second gift title of the decade.

 

[lillloyd]

For starters, that Eagles team was in the NFC championship every damn year, so that you even cite that team as a flukey one shows a distinct lack of respect for facts. So I imagine debating with you would be an uphill battle.

There's a search function. Look at a few of my posts, then come back and see if you still believe I've ever exhibited a "distinct lack of respect for facts" in this forum. Or, just read some of the posts in this thread carefully.

I've stated many times here that I'm NOT arguing that the Patriots victories are tainted or "unworthy" in any way. The Eagles were plenty "worthy", as were the Panthers. I'm on record here, throughout this very thread, as showing tremendous respect for what the Patriots accomplished. However, I *am* saying that if you, as a Pats fan, start criticizing other SB victories, you're unnecessarily putting yourself on a slippery slope because outside of the Rams, the Pats haven't been beating dynasties themselves.

And there was a potential dynasty in the NFC - it was the Rams, and the Patriots beat them.

Agreeed. This was a fantastic win and a great accomplishment. I believe I've said this a couple of times now in this thread. But for the record, I'm actually *not* the one arguing I don't think you have to give back Super Bowls that aren't against dynasties or "potential dynasties". But if you'er going to take that position however relative to other teams, you have to take everything that goes along with it. That said I seriously doubt you feel compelled to apologize (nor should you! -- and this is my point) for wins against the Eagles or Panthers, who I don't think anyone would categorize as dynasties, or potential dynasties.

As for the Seahawks 13-3 record, the only difference between that season and all the others surrounding it was they swept their joke of a division. If you don't think that was a down Super Bowl, I'm sorry, but it was. Even the referee of that game has mentioned he blew the game, and the winning QB had the lowest QB rating of any SB QB. Ever. It was a crappy Super Bowl.

OK, this gets to the heart of it. Let's say I grant your argument that the Eagles, by virtue of losing in the NFC title game several times, are a demonstrably better one-and-done team than the Panthers or Cardinals. Where does that put the Panthers victory, then? I have a hard team seeing any reasonable argument that those Panthers were demonstrably better than the Seahawks; but I doubt you would make similar arguments to discount the Patriots victory over the Panthers. (NOR SHOULD YOU!!). My point, at least, is not to denigrate what the Patriots have done in their SBs. Rather it's to point out that when you do this, you put yourself on a very shaky, slippery slope, and by logical extension you (unnecessarily) diminish your own legitimate accomplishments.

And we haven't even talked about those Cardinals. The one the Pats trounced with Cassel just weeks before the Steelers defeated them to earn their second gift title of the decade.

This is a Patriots forum full of die-hard Patriots fans, so I guess it would be almost disappointing not to get some hardline Patriots views on things. But I think that when these kinds of sentiments are expressed they come across as sort of small and petty, for a fanbase that has experienced such tremendous success. No team can win *every* Super Bowl (even a franchise as proud and distinguished as the Pats, who are essentially NFL royalty with their unparalleled success this centry), so to begrudge other teams their victories feels unnecessary and sort of, I dunno...unbecoming.

I'm looking for the dead horse emoticon (since obviously I've beaten this thing to death), but can't find it. In any event I'll get out of the way now.

Best of luck this postseason guys, here's to well-played, injury-free games throughout. The original intent of this thread was to suggest things are shaping up well for the Pats, so I think you guys have a lot to be hopeful for this year.

lillloyd

 

[BradyManny]

No team can win *every* Super Bowl (even a franchise as proud and distinguished as the Pats, who are essentially NFL royalty with their unparalleled success this centry), so to begrudge other teams their victories feels unnecessary and sort of, I dunno...unbecoming.

I don't see anything unbecoming about making comparisons between title runs. This is a sports forum, and if we ruled out things we oughta talk about since they were at least moderately trivial in nature, well, we'd run out of things to talk about rather quickly.

It doesn't take anything away from the Steelers titles to say I find their runs this decade - compared to the Patriots runs - rather lackluster. It's still a ring. It doesn't come with caveats.

But if we want to discuss the details of it here, I don't see a problem with that. If you want to say the Panthers are an easier opponent, that's fine. I just remember at the time, they were considered a formidable opponent, and that the Patriots had just defeated the two co-MVPs of the league to get to that point.

I also come back to the fact that the Patriots have twice beaten the Steelers en route to titles, whereas the Steelers have yet to beat the Patriots in the playoffs in this stretch.

I think these are all fairly valid things to point out.

I apologize if I lumped you in with the average out-of-town fan here. I can make assumptions, and that's probably not fair.

 

[lillloyd]

I don't see anything unbecoming about making comparisons between title runs. This is a sports forum, and if we ruled out things we oughta talk about since they were at least moderately trivial in nature, well, we'd run out of things to talk about rather quickly.

It doesn't take anything away from the Steelers titles to say I find their runs this decade - compared to the Patriots runs - rather lackluster. It's still a ring. It doesn't come with caveats.

But if we want to discuss the details of it here, I don't see a problem with that. If you want to say the Panthers are an easier opponent, that's fine. I just remember at the time, they were considered a formidable opponent, and that the Patriots had just defeated the two co-MVPs of the league to get to that point.

I also come back to the fact that the Patriots have twice beaten the Steelers en route to titles, whereas the Steelers have yet to beat the Patriots in the playoffs in this stretch.

I think these are all fairly valid things to point out.

I apologize if I lumped you in with the average out-of-town fan here. I can make assumptions, and that's probably not fair.

No worries, again I'd almost be disappointed if a Pats forum had fans that were regularly agreeing with me

If you want to include the actual playoff runs leading up to the title, the Steelers had a pretty good run themselves in '05 winning from the 6 slot for the first time in history. (I think that run may still have the record for the most combined wins from playoff opponents.) And that '08 team I believe had a historically tough schedule just to get to the playoffs.

Regarding Pitt missing the Patriots, remember I've never said that I think that Pitt was the better team over the past decade. That wasn't my point, far from it. (IMHO that was clearly the Pats decade--I think you may be lumping me in with other fans here?)

Slightly OT: I can understand Patriots fans pointing out that we avoided Brady due to injury in '08, when NE was just a year removed from being an absolute juggernaut. Admittedly, I'm not an avid follower of the Patriots...but that all said I will *never *understand why a lot of Pats fans (maybe not you, mind you, but this comes up repeatedly, I think even in this thread) point to avoiding NE in '05 as some sort of great escape.

From an outsider's perspective, that '05 team seemed like one of NE's least talented teams in the decade. It always seemed to me that us beating a 14-2 Indy team on the road (plus winning the other two playoff games on the road) was a far tougher task than that particular 10-6 NE team ever would have been, yet many Pats fans still seem to think that the "true" test that year should have been the '05 Patriots. I've never understood this; is it simply that these Pats fans considered the schematic matchup for the Pats so favorable against the Steelers, that they still consider an '05 Pats matchup a larger test than Pitt's three road playoff games?

 

[lillloyd]

It is fair to look at the question of "Are there teams that are able to consistently beat teams with losing records, but not able to beat teams who, based on performance against similar opponents, are similar in talent?" and by extension, whether or not the Patriots fall into that category. I don't think that this is an easy question to answer, and is certainly impossible to answer based on two games, especially since the first part of the question doesn't even have a definitive answer. In all likelihood, however, there is no statistical meaningfulness.

I will say this about Strength of Schedule: I think it matters a lot less than other factors (does the team have an experienced, SB QB? does the team have home field? is the team healthy? does it have momentum?) in the playoffs.

That said I think it probably counts for *something*... but the Pats have all of the aforementioned (and to my mind more important) factors going for them, so maybe it doesn't mean too much in their case.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

This QBs in the playoffs amaze me. It's really only Brady and Rapelisburger. Flacoo is average at best. Dalton in cincy..yates in texas and tebow in denver..this is why it's the pats for the taking if they want it

 

[Joker]

I'm looking for the dead horse emoticon (since obviously I've beaten this thing to death), but can't find it. In any event I'll get out of the way now.


lillloyd

here...don't ever say we didn't give you anything....

 

[Fball]

This QBs in the playoffs amaze me. It's really only Brady and Rapelisburger. Flacoo is average at best. Dalton in cincy..yates in texas and tebow in denver..this is why it's the pats for the taking if they want it

That's assuming that all you need is a great QB to win playoff games & the SB.

It works to the Pats disadvantage that they are so solely reliant on Brady, imo. Although he comes through the vast majority of the time, all it takes is an off day for him, and they don't really have anything (running game, defense) that they can fall back on.

 

[Ivan]

By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.



It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.

The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.

Actually the "meaningfulness" is 'lost" because you apply standards so arbitrarily. You cite the Patriots not beating a team with a winning record but call it trolling when I say Chicago and Detroit aren't good teams. In Chicago's case you cite their 7-3 start but ignore the fact they only beat one team with a winning record this season in that start, and you cite Detroit when they never beat a team with a winning record. So what you claim is meaningful in one instance you completely ignore in the other.

You also call Dilfer comments poorly thought out and over the top yet then claim they have merit, but refuse to give any reason as to why and dismiss disagreement as 'trolling."

Basically you make a statement and then declare it right by your terms of debate, and dismiss that which doesn't fit those terms as meaningless. It's a neat debating trick but pretty much meaningless in terms of the overall discussion. It's like Rex Ryan declaring the Jets the best team in football and the Champs, he can say it but it doesn't make it reality.

 

[Maker's Muppet]

In this day and age, a good QB beats a top defense, all else being equal (i.e. a solid offensive line for both teams).

 

[lillloyd]

here...don't ever say we didn't give you anything....

LOL thanks

OT: When exactly was it that people beat their horses to death so regularly (and then continued beating them *after* death, just for yuks) that this became a common saying?!

 

[brdmaverick]

If you want to include the actual playoff runs leading up to the title, the Steelers had a pretty good run themselves in '05 winning from the 6 slot for the first time in history. (I think that run may still have the record for the most combined wins from playoff opponents.) And that '08 team I believe had a historically tough schedule just to get to the playoffs.

Unfortunately I think they have since been eclipsed by the 2007 Giants. I don't have the stats right in front of me, but I don't know how a team could have beaten more difficult opponents than the 16-0 Pats, 13-3 Cowboys, and 13-3 Packers. Oh, they beat the Bucs too (9-7). But still, you are not going to go through a tougher playoff gauntlet than those first three teams mentioned.

 

[AzPatsFan]

That's assuming that all you need is a great QB to win playoff games & the SB.

It works to the Pats disadvantage that they are so solely reliant on Brady, IMO. Although he comes through the vast majority of the time, all it takes is an off day for him, and they don't really have anything (running game, defense) that they can fall back on.

For the four games that the Pats had a comparatively healthy Offensive line, their run game was outstanding. Of more importance is that the O-line and RBs are getting healthy now. Light, Mankins, Connelly, Waters and Volmer with a blocking TE of Solder, and Gronk is an outstanding run and pass protect line.

Unfortunately, they only had it for a few games; but they look to have all but probably Vollmer back for the Playoffs. To which they added the fine FB, Lousaka Polite. I'd say any team thinking the Pats can't run will be shocked to discover just how well they can. On top of that Deon Branch returned for the last game after missing several, and Ocho may be ready to contribute too. Both Ridely and BJGE are now healthy too. IOW, the Pats are NOT staggering into the Playoffs riddled with injuries like in other years. They are going in at full strength on Offense.

On Defense the last two games have seen the return to health and play of Mayo, Fletcher, Spikes, and most importantly Chung. Anytime you can add and return four starters to your eleven, it can't be bad.

 

[lillloyd]

Unfortunately I think they have since been eclipsed by the 2007 Giants. I don't have the stats right in front of me, but I don't know how a team could have beaten more difficult opponents than the 16-0 Pats, 13-3 Cowboys, and 13-3 Packers. Oh, they beat the Bucs too (9-7). But still, you are not going to go through a tougher playoff gauntlet than those first three teams mentioned.

If that's correct, then I think the NYG and Pitt would be tied, 51 opponent wins apiece. Pitt beat Cincy (11-5), Indy (14-2), Denver (13-3), and Seattle (13-3).

Give the nod to NY since they knocked off an undefeated team...but a pretty serious accomplishment for both PITT and NYG in my book!