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

    • Cards weren't really blitzing that much the entire game.  The ones they sent just wrecked Bryce.  My opinion is you are over fixated on what happened as we got close to the goal.   The one possession we had in the 3rd quarter? That was a freebie to get down there.  It was literally just checkdowns to the TE when we weren't running the ball down... taking up the entire quarter.  Next quarter Cards were inviting the exact same behavior.  Which is why you got those back to back clock eating small ball 14 play drives.  Featuring RB and TE easy catches. 
    • I don't think they changed as much as you think between the INT and the final sack (immediate pressure with 4 linemen). They definitely stopped blitzing as much, if a blitz means rushing more than the front 4/5. They definitely did some exotic packages where they sent LBs/DBs and dropped linemen into coverage though. The fumble and INT were both blitzes. And yes they were successful. And yes, I agreed with Bryce not taking care of the ball. Really not many answers on those plays - just take the sack and live another play (unless you're Lamar). Which he didn't do. And no, you can't run prevent on the goal line. What's prevent defense to you? Alignment, personnel, cushion, etc.? Just curious. My reply was to the post that they sat back in some soft zone the whole game - until the end, when it mattered. That's not true. They blitzed, they disguised coverages and blitzers, they pressed, they bailed, they covered the flats, all of that. Not trying to argue. Just trying to inform. Actually they only blitzed once on the final drive, and the DB got away with a bad hold on Tremayne. Otherwise looked like it would have been a completion for a first down. The Cardinals' final drive defense looked a lot like the rest of the game.  I know it's easy to get upset after a lose (I'm guilty), but Mondays are when cooler heads prevail. Right? Emotions can make us seem like we don't know what we're talking about. The Huddle isn't supposed to be that. I always saw it as a place to go discuss the Carolina Panthers with more than the casual fan, and their emotionally charged opinions. I can get that at the local grocery store, where they don't know anything about NC/SC, let alone the Panthers. 
    • Poor guy went from the Ravens to this disaster
×
×
  • Create New...