To Switzer's defense the NFC was overly represented in the playoffs the last couple years with very young dual threat QBs. On the other hand the AFC, because of its lack of dual threat QBs, by default was overwhelmingly represented by the traditionals. Which begs the question, were the traditionals better or were they just, well, traditionals. Traditions do change however.
The NFC was overrepresented by teams with great defenses which drug their teams to the playoffs despite limited passing offenses.
Seattle finished 1st in total defense.
Carolina finished 2nd in total defense.
San Francisco finished 5th in total defense.
Seattle finished 26th in passing.
Carolina finished 29th in passing.
San Francisco finished 30th in passing.
But I suppose, by your ludicrous reasoning, these teams made the playoffs primarily because of the talents of their QB's.
Here is a better question:
Would Denver, which finished 19th in total defense, have made the playoffs with either Kapernick or Wilson at QB???
Maybe. But until one of them takes his team to the playoffs without a great defense, it is an open question.
After all Kaepernick has never passed for 3200 yards in a season.
Wilson has never passed for 3400 yards in a season.
Can you win consistently in the NFL without a great defense with those kinds of numbers???
I suppose your real point must be something along these lines: If Seattle and Denver traded QB's, then Denver would suddenly be better than Seattle because Wilson is better than Manning. Ludicrous? Yes.
Incidentally, my take on the ceiling for white quarterbacks is, oh, somewhere around the Joe Montana level.