Sign in to follow this  
Cortes

Why has the AFC been such a clownfire?

Recommended Posts

Don’t tell me it’s just because Brady/Belichick are that good. Or Manning or Big Ben...

The NFC is filled with bloodthirsty stud QBs. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Cam had a run in 2015, etc, now Wentz tasted blood and wants more. Having a few elite QBs can’t be the reason. 

What’s the AFCs excuse? Good lord, if not for Denver building an elite defense in 2015, and Sanchize and Flacco going super saiyan in 2010 and 2012 (oh yeah, and Peyton finally beating Brady in 2006), AND Brady tearing his ACL in 08, the Pats could have been in the SB consecutively for the past 15 years, and if not for the aforementioned teams and Eli Manning, they’d have 6+ rings.

The Browns, Bengals, and post Manning Colts seem to be especially incompetent organizations, but it’s absurd that with the parity driven NFL, the AFC hasn’t been able to be nearly as competitive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zero clue. They've only had 5 champs in the last 15 years (Patriots, Broncos, Ravens, Steelers, Colts) and 7 in 23 years (Raiders, Titans). It's bonkers and I don't know how to explain it in the salary cap era. The NFC has it's mainstays but usually seems pretty wideopen from year to year. I mean since 2001, the entire NFC West and NFC South have appeared in a superbowl and half of the East and North. So that's only 4 teams that haven't made it in 17 years. FOUR! (Lions, Vikings, Cowboys, Redskins)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip Rivers got fairly close around the late 00s but ran into the 18-1 Pats buzzsaw

It almost seemed for a moment that Big Red would take the Chiefs far, but nope.

There *has* to be a changing of the guard at some point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to come and go in cycles. 

At one point the NFC won 13 Super Bowls in a row, and then the AFC won 9 out of the next  12. Since that point it's been a little more even (NFC 5, AFC 4). The AFC is definitely the inferior conference again right now. 

Not sure what the reason for it is. It's hard to fathom that outside of one year (Flacco in 2012), the QB representing the AFC in the Super Bowl since 2003 has been Brady, Manning or Ben. It reeks of utter incompetence by the rest of the conference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Belichick is a lot better than the other coaches in the AFC. I think Tomlin is overrated and the Steelers are underachievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question.  I don't know the answer.  Well maybe one reason is the AFC East stinks to high heaven every year. So we already know that the Pats will come outta that Division.

But the rest of the AFC has to frickin step up!! NFC teams represent! They are always sending different teams to the Bowl. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cortes said:

Don’t tell me it’s just because Brady/Belichick are that good. Or Manning or Big Ben...

The NFC is filled with bloodthirsty stud QBs. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Cam had a run in 2015, etc, now Wentz tasted blood and wants more. Having a few elite QBs can’t be the reason. 

What’s the AFCs excuse? Good lord, if not for Denver building an elite defense in 2015, and Sanchize and Flacco going super saiyan in 2010 and 2012 (oh yeah, and Peyton finally beating Brady in 2006), AND Brady tearing his ACL in 08, the Pats could have been in the SB consecutively for the past 15 years, and if not for the aforementioned teams and Eli Manning, they’d have 6+ rings.

The Browns, Bengals, and post Manning Colts seem to be especially incompetent organizations, but it’s absurd that with the parity driven NFL, the AFC hasn’t been able to be nearly as competitive.

 

Since 2001, the AFC representative at the Super Bowl has always been a team featuring Brady, Manning, or Roethlisberger.  (The two exceptions are Gannon and Flacco: both QBs from the University of Delaware.  It takes a UD alumnus to unseat one of the big three!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that. I mean, I think the league has been more balanced the last 10 years than ever. SB's are split 5 each of the last 10, and they've won 3 of the last 4. I'd say the AFC is doing just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cortes said:

Philip Rivers got fairly close around the late 00s but ran into the 18-1 Pats buzzsaw

It almost seemed for a moment that Big Red would take the Chiefs far, but nope.

There *has* to be a changing of the guard at some point...

18 and 1 probably never happen, LT was hurt in that game and Rivers played the entire game with a torn ACL.. if they were healthy most likely Pats lose, the score was 21-12..

Would have been Rivers vs Eli...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been my argument for a long time. The Pats get to the SB and have the upper hand because they are fresher. An easier schedule that includes an awful division and a easier play off run. 

But that could now change. Pittsburgh will no doubt make changes and weren't thar far away. Jacksonville need to bring in a QB but if they do watch out for them. Houston seem to be on the up with Watson. Buffalo finally broke their play off duck. The Jets actually had a better year than expected. With a few smart moves they improve again. Chiefs will be there or thereabouts. Chargers picked it up as the year progressed. Titans got rid of Malarkey. So I think the AFC could be set to get more competitive. And just as the Pats potentially start to crumble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cycles. Go back to Super Bowl I, when the NFL was considered far superior that nobody gave AFL a chance. Then the Dolphins, Steelers, and Raiders won most of the 1970's. Followed by 13 Super Bowl wins in a row by the NFC. Then AFC won 9 of 12 championships. This year NFC seems the superior conference.... It goes back and forth.

I think talent and success attracts more talent and success... Now that the Eagles are SB champs, the Cowboys, Giants, and Redskins have to step up to compete. The rest of the conference has to play stronger to compete. The Patriots don't have to get any better to have a chance at a Super Bowl trophy if their competition isn't any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 1:12 AM, Cortes said:

Don’t tell me it’s just because Brady/Belichick are that good. Or Manning or Big Ben...

The NFC is filled with bloodthirsty stud QBs. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Cam had a run in 2015, etc, now Wentz tasted blood and wants more. Having a few elite QBs can’t be the reason. 

What’s the AFCs excuse? Good lord, if not for Denver building an elite defense in 2015, and Sanchize and Flacco going super saiyan in 2010 and 2012 (oh yeah, and Peyton finally beating Brady in 2006), AND Brady tearing his ACL in 08, the Pats could have been in the SB consecutively for the past 15 years, and if not for the aforementioned teams and Eli Manning, they’d have 6+ rings.

The Browns, Bengals, and post Manning Colts seem to be especially incompetent organizations, but it’s absurd that with the parity driven NFL, the AFC hasn’t been able to be nearly as competitive.

 

Coaches. It’s always coaching. The difference in talent among the teams is so narrow, that it comes down to how much time, money, and effort teams invest in coaching. The NFC has had a string of excellent coaching hires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Brady or Belichick is with the Patriots, much less both, they will be good, and that's the X-factor.  They will always be good enough for that first-round bye and then be fresher in the playoffs, making it 33% easier to make the Super Bowl, and 25% easier to win the Super Bowl.  As long as Brady or Belichick is with the Patriots, they will win their division.  The rest of the AFC East needs nothing less than one of the best QBs or one of the best head coaches in history in order to unseat the Patriots and win that division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 4:33 AM, Dawkins 20 said:

It seems to come and go in cycles. 

At one point the NFC won 13 Super Bowls in a row, and then the AFC won 9 out of the next  12. Since that point it's been a little more even (NFC 5, AFC 4). The AFC is definitely the inferior conference again right now. 

Not sure what the reason for it is. It's hard to fathom that outside of one year (Flacco in 2012), the QB representing the AFC in the Super Bowl since 2003 has been Brady, Manning or Ben. It reeks of utter incompetence by the rest of the conference. 

well, you could make that same argument for the hey day of the NFC. With the exception of the Bears in Super Bowl 20, the NFC representative was either the NFC East (all 4 of the current teams) or the San Francisco 49ers.

I believe this was SB's 15-30. So the Bears snuck in their once, but never did another team from the West, another team from the current North (Central for most of those years), nor a team from the current South.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 11:12 PM, Cortes said:

The Browns, Bengals, and post Manning Colts seem to be especially incompetent organizations, but it’s absurd that with the parity driven NFL, the AFC hasn’t been able to be nearly as competitive.

Subtract the Colts, as they were good with Manning.. and were pretty good with Luck till injuries derailed him.  But then add in the Raiders, Jaguars, Bills as teams that have been perennially horrific.  Their outlook might of finally changed, but those have just been bad teams.  So 5/16 teams have just been plain bad for the last 16 years or so.

Then count in the teams stuck in mediocrity, that are never good enough to win it all but never bad enough to get a high draft pick/rebuild properly.  Like the Dolphins, Texans, Chargers, Chiefs, Jets, and Titans.

5 horrific teams, 6 consistently mediocre teams, makes the conference more of a competition between 5 teams.  The Patriots, Broncos, Colts (though trending down hard and fast), Steelers, Ravens.

Compare that to the NFC.

Perenially bad teams would be the Lions, Bears., Rams.  Although the Lions have been better recently, it doesn't erase the terrible seasons and how awful they were for a very long time.  Bears have been horrific since their superbowl appearance.  Rams finally had a good season, but have to go all the way to 2003 before that to see them with a winning record.

But then after that, things get real muddy.  Every other team has managed to win their division at some point, make the playoffs, and make some noise in the playoffs (except the Cowboys and Redskins haha.)  All of the NFC South has been to/won a superbowl.  If you count the early 2000 Rams, same thing in the NFC West.  The NFC North has been the only bad division really, with the Packers generally winning and the Vikings competing but never going the distance.  The East division winner changes every year it seems.

Now as to why this is?  My guess is turnover in the organizations.  In the AFC, the few teams are so far ahead of the others.. .that the teams that aren't competing are very quick to hit the reset button and seem like they are constantly building.  In the NFC there isn't that much disparity from the elite teams to the mediocre ones.  There's less panic and pressure to restart, since everyone is "close."

So what you end up getting in the NFC is that teams are constantly competing every off-season to add that one piece, that one wrinkle that puts them ahead.  Look at the NFC east, seems the biggest names in free agency tend to land on one of those teams every off-season even though they're always strapped for cap space. The AFC is looking 2 seasons ahead on how to get ahead of teams like the Steelers/Patriots etc, the NFC is looking one season ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, it's cyclical and over the course of NFL history it is more the norm that one conference dominates.  The previous 8 years were maybe the most balanced the 2 conferences have ever been, but in '17 the pendulum finally swung hard to the NFC.  Real hard. 

 

Oddly enough it's usually not the Qb's that determine these trends, it's the defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chargers have been so close so many times, they always play like the Giants: win the last 7 to try to get to the playoffs. Had they gotten in last year or the other years healthy they would have given the Pats a lot of problems. The Ravens are needing an offense they would have had more rings.. they were that good on D. 

Chargers since 2001 like the Eagles.. very competitive and close... best records in the NFL aside from the Cheaters..   I like the Chargers this year to make one last push as long as they don't lose those early games..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFC QB's have been a dumpster fire, going back to 2001 when Brady became the starter..

 Tom Brady 8 SB appearance. 37 playoff games.

Peyton Manning 4 SB appearance 2 with the Colts, 2 with Denver. 27 playoff games.

Ben Roethlisberger 3 SB appearance. 21 playoff games. 

Joe Flacco 1 SB appearance.  15 playoff games.

Rich Gannon 1 SB appearance. 7 playoff games..

Those are the QB who have made the SB since Tom Brady took over....

 

Just to give an example of how tough the NFC is..

Rodgers is the best QB in the conference has played 16 playoff games with 9-7 record...1 SB...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 1:02 AM, OaktownGangstah said:

The Chargers have been so close so many times, they always play like the Giants: win the last 7 to try to get to the playoffs. Had they gotten in last year or the other years healthy they would have given the Pats a lot of problems. The Ravens are needing an offense they would have had more rings.. they were that good on D. 

Chargers since 2001 like the Eagles.. very competitive and close... best records in the NFL aside from the Cheaters..   I like the Chargers this year to make one last push as long as they don't lose those early games..  

The Chargers are the AFC Cowboys.  Idiots keep picking them because the top 8-10 players on the roster look so formidable.  But those rosters have deep flaws when you take them all the way to 53.  Year in year out they prove it, looking unbeatable when the star players go on a collective tear and then falling apart at key junctions when their true nature's are exposed.

 

I'm honestly surprised people never learn and keep jumping on those two wagons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:43 AM, toolg said:

Cycles. Go back to Super Bowl I, when the NFL was considered far superior that nobody gave AFL a chance. Then the Dolphins, Steelers, and Raiders won most of the 1970's. Followed by 13 Super Bowl wins in a row by the NFC. Then AFC won 9 of 12 championships. This year NFC seems the superior conference.... It goes back and forth.

I think talent and success attracts more talent and success... Now that the Eagles are SB champs, the Cowboys, Giants, and Redskins have to step up to compete. The rest of the conference has to play stronger to compete. The Patriots don't have to get any better to have a chance at a Super Bowl trophy if their competition isn't any better.

The Steelers were not originally an AFL team though.  Remember after the merger three NFL teams went with the AFL teams to form the AFC so the two conferences would have an equal number of teams:  The Browns,  the Colts,  and the Steelers.  

The AFL got just close enough to the NFL to pull off two stunning upsets.   The NFL believed it was so vastly superior they often didn't even bother to scout AFL teams.   Super Bowl 2 reinforced this notion,  the Raiders dominated the AFL that year  and yet the Packers easily beat them,  and '67 was the weakest of Lombardi's teams.  They only went 9-4-1 that year.  It set up Super Bowls 3 and 4 to be such a huge stunners.   Both the Colts and Vikings thought they could just show up and win and wound up getting shocked.

Makes you wonder if Vince Lombardi took the AFL teams more seriously than the other NFL coaches did since he handled them twice with relative ease.  Just adds to his legend a bit I suppose and makes the Packers first two Super Bowl wins seem even more impressive than they actually appeared to be at the time.   The AFL was obviously further along than people thought. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime i scroll by this thread i chuckle in my head as i imagine clowns running around on Fire.

Would it be tragic or funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this