Manning to Denver

[poncherelli2]

Yeah, the AFC has declined in recent years and really hasn't been that good in the last 30 years (relatively speaking). As I stated earlier, the AFC has won only 10 Super Bowls in the last 30 years and 9 of those have been since 1997. After some success in the first decade of this century, the AFC has fallen on hard times and the NFC has won 4 of the last 5 Super Bowls. The Pats, Steelers, and Colts have owned the SB slot for the AFC since the 2003 season.

The NFC West should be good with San Francisco returning and if Arizona can get some consistency on offense, they could be dangerous as well. Seattle is probably a year or so away and who knows with the Rams, but with the trade with Washington, they have a bright future.

Superbowl victories probably aren't the best measure of conference strength. If you look at aggregate interconference records by year, 2011 was the first year that the NFC won outright since 1995. Since 2000, the AFC leads the NFC 383-311:

http://instantreplay1.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/afc-versus-nfc/

 

[IAteYourMother]

Superbowl victories probably aren't the best measure of conference strength. If you look at aggregate interconference records by year, 2011 was the first year that the NFC won outright since 1995. Since 2000, the AFC leads the NFC 383-311:

http://instantreplay1.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/afc-versus-nfc/

if the goal is to win a super bowl, then yes, super bowl victories matter, since you'd be more interested in the quality of teams at the top of the conference. It would be much harder to win the Super Bowl in a conference where it's solely scrub and elite teams versus a conference filled with slightly above average teams.

From 1982-1997, the AFC only won the Super Bowl once, and it was generally considered that whoever won the NFC would win the super bowl because it was the superior conference. Yet, the overall win-loss record suggests that the two are equal.

tl;dr overall interconference win-loss record is a poor metric

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Superbowl victories probably aren't the best measure of conference strength. If you look at aggregate interconference records by year, 2011 was the first year that the NFC won outright since 1995. Since 2000, the AFC leads the NFC 383-311:

http://instantreplay1.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/afc-versus-nfc/

When I speak of conference strength, I'm really only referring to the powers in each conference because I generally am speaking about championship possibilities. Your stats don't really surprise me and even during the NFC's incredible streak of 13 SB wins in a row (most by large margins), the AFC held their own against the NFC and in fact, I think won the overall interconference record. I think that what these kinds of things typically indicate is that one conference (the AFC) probably has better mid-range teams and fewer really poor teams on average than the NFC, but the NFC powers dominate the AFC powers.

With the Colts, Pats, and Steelers all declining and the Giants, Packers, Saints, and 49ers on the upswing, I think we may see the NFC dominating the Super Bowl for several years. I said it many times this past season, but I'll repeat it again -- the Patriots and Ravens were clearly the best AFC teams and I don't think either of them would stand a chance against the Giants, Saints, 49ers, or Packers in most cases.

 

[Childs]

I said it many times this past season, but I'll repeat it again -- the Patriots and Ravens were clearly the best AFC teams and I don't think either of them would stand a chance against the Giants, Saints, 49ers, or Packers in most cases.

The best NFC team at the end of the year was possibly the Eagles, and they didn't even make the playoffs!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

And of course, remember, the NFC East itself was full of power teams in the 80s and 90s. The only non-power team in that division would be the Cards. The rest of the teams (Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and even the Eagles) were often the elite of the entire league.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The best NFC team at the end of the year was possibly the Eagles, and they didn't even make the playoffs!

You have to close the deal in the NFL and that includes winning early to ensure a playoff spot.

 

[IAteYourMother]

The best NFC team at the end of the year was possibly the Eagles, and they didn't even make the playoffs!

because they beat 4 teams that didn't have winning records? :hmm:

 

[NeoV]

Eagles were possibly the best team in the NFC at the end of the season? Did you see how the Packers/Saints/Giants/49er's finished up?

 

[Childs]

You have to close the deal in the NFL and that includes winning early to ensure a playoff spot.

because they beat 4 teams that didn't have winning records? :hmm:

Yeah, but don't tell me any team would have wanted to face them in the playoffs. They got healthy and started to hit their stride, it just happened too late. I think the lockout hurt them more than anyone, due to all the new talent. They'll be dangerous next year.

The only pretenders in the NFC are the Falcons. Otherwise, any one of the NFC playoff teams this year I could have imagined winning the Superbowl. Yes, even Detroit. AFC is really just Patriots and Steelers.

 

[Childs]

Eagles were possibly the best team in the NFC at the end of the season? Did you see how the Packers/Saints/Giants/49er's finished up?

If the Packers didn't have essentially 2 weeks off, they might have won it all, but they lost their momentum late. Saints didn't really play anyone in awhile...they weren't really ready for a fight. The Giants last 4 games were against non playoff teams, one of which was a loss to the Redskins. And even though the 49ers are local, the only really impressive win in the last half of the season was against the Steelers. So just looking at the games coming up to the playoffs, I believe the Eagles were playing the best. I would have love to seen the Eagles vs Packers/Saints/Lions matchup in the playoffs..