A Mere Five Things That I Think

[Mike the Brit]

While I agree that most analysts do take the easy way out, I think there is some credence to the "they have the best QBs" comment.

Truly exceptional QBs are rare commodities. While you would expect to see the best 6 QBs be evenly distributed between the conferences, it will happen from time to time that they will be concentrated on one conference. When that occurs, the best teams in that conference will be likely be better than the other.

THe comment about defenses is harder to defend because there are just too many players for there to be that drastic of a talent differential. I would probably lean towards coaches before mentioning defenses.

Indeed. But is it just that the best teams in the AFC are better than the best teams in the NFC? (And -- Manning and Brady apart -- is the gap between AFC and NFC quarterbacks so marked? Favre and Bulger are pretty good and there are some who rate McNabb very highly.)

 

[psychoPat]

... and there are some who rate McNabb very highly.)

Are you, or have you ever been,
an African-American quarterback?

Only persons with those credentials are qualified
to judge what Donovan has gone thru and accomplished.

 

[ATippett56]

5. Discussions of AFC dominance always seem to 'beg the question'. For instance, when the crew on HBO's excellent 'Inside the NFL' get asked - about once a season - why the AFC is so dominant over the NFC, they answer with comments like 'the AFC has better quarterbacks', or 'the AFC have better defenses'. But that isn't answering the question at all - we all know that better teams have better quarterbacks, players, coaches; the question is WHY should it have come to pass that these better things are concentrated in the AFC?

Is it a cyclical reaction to the previous years of NFC dominance, in some way? I have no idea, but I wish the guys who know more than me would come up with something or else just admit they don't know either.

Hopefully, this article will shed some light on the AFC dominance.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_1664_Troll_report:_Fearsome_Foursome_update.html

 

[Oswlek]

Indeed. But is it just that the best teams in the AFC are better than the best teams in the NFC? (And -- Manning and Brady apart -- is the gap between AFC and NFC quarterbacks so marked? Favre and Bulger are pretty good and there are some who rate McNabb very highly.)

Favre, Bulger, McNabb, Hasselbeck, Brees

Palmer, Roth, Young, Rivers

Yeah, once you remove Brady and Manning the edge seems to go away, but Brady and Manning have won 4 of the last 6 titles and the two times they weren't in it, you had one game that should have been close and another where the NFC dominated.

 

[onegameatatime]

I think there is a little bit of a loading up for the opposition effect, but with a hard cap, there's only so much you can do.

I suspect it's mostly just a random variation matter. Unlike baseball, the rules are the same between leagues/conferences, so no apparent reason for a difference. No more reason than there was for the NFC to dominate from about 1981-1997.

The two organizations I've been most impressed with are Pittsburgh and Denver. There's a down year here and there, but they have each been competitive for most of the last 35 years. It does tell me that ownership and few coaches make a big difference.

 

[PatsFan37]

While I agree that most analysts do take the easy way out, I think there is some credence to the "they have the best QBs" comment.

Truly exceptional QBs are rare commodities. While you would expect to see the best 6 QBs be evenly distributed between the conferences, it will happen from time to time that they will be concentrated on one conference. When that occurs, the best teams in that conference will be likely be better than the other.

THe comment about defenses is harder to defend because there are just too many players for there to be that drastic of a talent differential. I would probably lean towards coaches before mentioning defenses.

Thanks, OEP, for starting this thread.

Another big factor, harder to quantify, is the overall quality of the owner/GM relationship. It can really sink a team, whereas a sharp GM with freedom to act (AJ Smith and yes, NaPolian) can do wonders. NaPolian has been excellent finding talent at the bottom of the draft.

And then it changes, in a year, when AJ Smith maneuvers to dump the coaching staff.

So there are a lot of intangibles and the balance can flip in a year. A few key injuries or mistakes can move from the superbowl to the bottom of the league (the Eagles with TO's 2nd year / McNabb's injury). I do think there's a lot of luck involved, and with the exception of a few teams, little stability.

The perfect storm of Kraft / Belichick / Pioli / Brady is unusual and amazing. That's why we need to enjoy this party while it lasts.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Just want to jump on the "you write good" bandwagon, OEP - keep 'em coming!

 

[Mike the Brit]

Hopefully, this article will shed some light on the AFC dominance.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_1664_Troll_report:_Fearsome_Foursome_update.html

That was interesting. Four "mega-franchises" would certainly skew things. But how far back does the AFC dominance go? And how far down (is it just the top end?)

 

[Water Boy]

if I were a betting man (which I am) I would have considered it a fairly tough game to pick and a classic no-play.

I too enjoy wagering on football. What do you think about a weekly thread where people can post there thoughts on which games they like, which ones they don't etc?

Is anyone else salivating over the Pats (-7.5) against Cinci?

 

[Fencer]

I'm going to push back on #5.

The reasons for AFC dominance, just like the reasons for NFC dominance and NFC East strength in the 1980s, are mainly coincidence.

AFC dominance is three teams, or four if you count the Chargers. Steelers are just a long-term good franchise. There's a rare newcomer who figures it out (49ers, Patriots), and it happens to have been the Patriots most recently.

Indy happened to have the best #1 overall draft pick that's currently in his prime, and didn't happen to screw anything else up. I.e., their strategic decisions about offensive scheme and personnel investment strategy have been OK. That got the team to winning enough that they all got sick of their remaining unprofessionalism, and pulled together to become champion types.

SD had the other phenomenally good #1 overall pick result, when they traded it for LdT. But unlike Indy, they've screwed up their continuity and may wind up not building on their initial success.

In the 1980s, you had an NFC East that taught each other the importance of extreme toughness; two of the best old-school coaches (Parcells and Gibbs); and BB. And most important to the overall NFC, you had Bill Walsh, who did as much to turn around the 49ers as Parcells and BB combined have done for the Pats.

 

[Sunqueen212]

Thanks for all the responses, especially the kind words of course.

To respond to a couple of the comments; with the spiking penalty, I take the point about delaying the game by slowing the spotting of the ball. I hadn't really thought about that, nor paid much attention to how this has been dealt with in previous seasons.

And Mike the (fellow) Brit: Very good point about the possibility that a conference's long-term dominance could be caused by a sort of self-perpetuating effect: the bar being raised if you want to compete in one conference, mediocrity being good enough in the other. That's the best answer I've heard to the puzzle.

That would increase the length of the game, no? The NFLPA, TV networks or somebody would have an issue with that I think?

 

[SpiderFox53]

Hopefully, this article will shed some light on the AFC dominance.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_1664_Troll_report:_Fearsome_Foursome_update.html

The only problem I have with this article is this particular quote re: Denver

haven't had a losing season since 1999 (the other three have all had losing seasons this decade)

I know I'm being anal about this, but the year 2000 belongs to the last decade, even the last century. Both of these things (decade, century) start with year x1 and end with year x0. The Patriots last losing season was in the last decade/century not this one.

 

[captain stone]

The thing that I don't understand about spiking the ball being delay of game is that it is the offensive players doing the spiking. If they want to delay the spotting of the ball, who cares? If they prevent the ball from being spotted at all, then they receive a normal delay of game penalty when the play clock winds down. If the ball is spotted, but later than it would have been otherwise, then the offense has again only hurt itself by giving itself less time at the line to read the defense.

I'm just not sure what the point is since the offense still has the play clock to contend with.

Interesting points. Does the 40-second clock begin immediately after the previous play is blown dead?

I actually would like to see the NFL adopt the NCAA rule, whereby the game clock is stopped after a first down, while the chains are being moved/reset. As a tradeoff, the artificial timeout of the 2-minute warning could be removed; again, like in college.

 

[Pats726]

Interesting points. Does the 40-second clock begin immediately after the previous play is blown dead?

I actually would like to see the NFL adopt the NCAA rule, whereby the game clock is stopped after a first down, while the chains are being moved/reset. As a tradeoff, the artificial timeout of the 2-minute warning could be removed; again, like in college.

Games would be much longer...every first down...no..maybe in the last 3 minutes or 5 minutes..but NOT all through the game...