Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Superbowl reps AFC vs NFC


dos poptarts

Recommended Posts

From 2001-Current, I just realized that the Superbowl reps from the NFC have been very diverse while the AFC has been repped by only 4 teams (dominated by 3 teams).

I'm wondering if this isn't about dynasties, but whether is the conference filled with teams that have ZERO chance to even get to a Superbowl.

NFC: Only 6 different teams haven't been to the Superbowl since 2001:

Dallas, Washington, Atlanta, San Francisco, Detroit, Minnesota,

AFC: Only 4 different teams have: NE, Pitt, Indy, Raiders (yes, the outlier)

Looking at the NFC, I see a few teams which haven't had the players, coach, and luck to reach the SB. Wash, Detroit

Dallas, Minny, ATL (pains me to say it), and SanFran (this year) have had enough pieces to at least get there once in the last 10 years.

AFC: Cincy, Cleveland, Miami, Buff, Houston, Jax, Denver, KC: These I haven't really given a shot due to talent, ownership, coaching, players. There always 2 pieces missing.

So is it really about dynasties or really poor competition in the AFC. In the NFC every team has hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFC:

2001: St Louis Rams

2002: Tampa Bay Bucs

2003: Carolina Panthers

2004: Philly Eagles

2005: Seattle Seahawks

2006: Chicago Bears

2007: NY Giants

2008: Arizona Cardinals

2009: NO Saints

2010: Green Bay Packers

2011: NY Giants

By Division:

NFC East: 2

NFC North: 2

NFC South: 3

NFC West: 3

AFC:

2001: NE Patriots

2002: Oakland Raiders

2003: NE Patriots

2004: NE Patriots

2005: Pittsburg Steelers

2006: Indianapolis Colts

2007: NE Patriots

2008: Pittsburg Steelers

2009: Indianapolis Colts

2010: Pittsburg Steelers

2011: NE Patriots

NFC East: 1

NFC North: 1

NFC South: 1

NFC West: 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say here is that the NFC has been very inconsistant, while the top of the AFC has been very hard to crack into over the same amount of time.

Indy, NE, Baltimore, Pitt, and to a lesser extent SD have won a ton of games over the last 10 years, while many teams in the NFC have been on roller coaster rides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say here is that the NFC has been very inconsistant, while the top of the AFC has been very hard to crack into over the same amount of time.

Indy, NE, Baltimore, Pitt, and to a lesser extent SD have won a ton of games over the last 10 years, while many teams in the NFC have been on roller coaster rides.

I haven't verified the numbers, but it does seem that way. But is this chicken-egg?

Are the top AFC teams dominating because there are less contenders? There are a lot of teams that have ZERO chance to get hot in the playoffs and knock-off these great teams and get to the Superbowl. I'm not questioning NE, Pitt, Indy, Balt, or SD's awesomeness these last 10 years.

Before Houston this year & Jets last few years, has there been any AFC team other than the ones listed above that could truly get hot and knockoff an AFC leader and represent in the Superbowl.

Yes, the NFC beats each other up (or inconsistent), but how many doormats are there in the NFC that have had ZERO chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say here is that the NFC has been very inconsistant, while the top of the AFC has been very hard to crack into over the same amount of time.

Indy, NE, Baltimore, Pitt, and to a lesser extent SD have won a ton of games over the last 10 years, while many teams in the NFC have been on roller coaster rides.

how many teams in the AFC have had winning seasons over the last 10 years compared to the NFC?

i think it speaks more to parity than consistency.

there has been more parity in the NFC than there has been in the AFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think he did a solid job.  Honestly I liked his post game interview the best.  He gave himself a C and said he left a lot out on the field.  That kind of attitude can carry him far.
    • This is lacking a fairly considerable amount of context. For one, Adams(age 22) started 12 of 16 games, had 38 rec, 446 yds and 3 TD's on 66 targets(18 less, with 2 less games started). The main thing missing here is that the top two WR's for Green Bay that year combined for about 2800 yds and 25 TD's. Now if you want to throw a more accurate dart at Adams, take a look at year two. This year the production was spread around considerably and Adams didn't stand out from that pack(pun not intended).  So, if XL struggles mightily this season, I would probably keep that comparison in your quiver to counter argue. I would suggest that I don't think that scenario is probably very accurate for most HOF caliber WR's taken in the first round over the past 15 or so years. Adams was the 89th pick overall, as well. A little different hill to climb than XL, although not massively.
    • to clarify I am not referring to Will Levis.  Not knowingly.   I just made that up and tried to use a reasonable guesstimate of what else was done.  That sounded in the ballpark.  At one time I did look it all up and there were several teams that had much more successful days downfield.   If that happened to be Levis' actual numbers than it's more of a lucky coincidence.  If memory serves, it wasn't just Will Levis that brought the claim into question, it was SEVERAL teams had better days.  and you are missing my entire point of the subjective nature of it all.  If PFF employee Doug watched Bryce's film and then used his same unique subjective vantage point to grade all 31 other starting QBs.  Then dumped into into a spread sheet, it would a subjective Doug take but at least it would be a level uniform subjectivity.   The grades are done by various people.  All watching and applying their own subjective view to a play.  Everyone isn't going to grade incompletions out the same.  Or completions.   So when you dump it all into a spread sheet and hit sort.....it's not actually a statement of fact as portrayed.  Which is why you sometimes get some head scratching stuff.  I'm not reframing anything.   I don't think.  I just wasn't going to look it all back up so I was talking vaguely off the general issue I have with PFF and treating any random claim they make as the truth. 
×
×
  • Create New...