Everyone is always saying that the the teams in the AFC are "way better" than the teams in the NFC....I disagree this year....look at the Stats.
- There's one team in each conference who is 6-0
- There's one team in each conference that's 5-1
- 3 teams in the AFC are 4-2.....5 teams in the NFC are
- 1 team in the AFC is 4-3.....2 in the NFC are
- there's one 1-6 team and three 1-5 teams in the AFC.....there's two 1-6 teams in the NFC.
- Teams that are considered "bad" this year are Miami (AFC), Cleveland (AFC), Tennessee (AFC), Houston (AFC), Oakland (AFC), Detroit (NFC), Arizona (NFC), and Washington (NFC)
The #1 and #2 teams on offense are Philadelphia and Giants...both NFC.
The #1 team on Defense is San Diego (AFC) and the #2 team is Chicago (NFC)
The League Leaders in Rushing (Tiki Barber), Passing & TD passes (Donovan McNabb), Sacks (Julius Peppers), Field Goals & Scoring (Gould) plus a couple more are all in the NFC...
Agree? Disagree?
2006-10-27 09:10:51 · 22 answers · asked by Jessica 4 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Scotty - if thats your rationale than the AFC is getting those stats by beating other AFC teams that Suck...and the AFC has way more bad teams which means their records should be better...
2006-10-27 09:24:21 · update #1
td 6 - looking at the standings I see only 7 AFC teams fighting for the playoffs...records are 4-3 or better (with two 3-3 teams which would make it 9)
There are 9 NFC teams 4-3 or better (with one 3-3 team which would make it 10)....
2006-10-27 09:38:52 · update #2
Go AFC!!!!!!!
2006-10-27 09:14:47 · answer #1 · answered by Keith Perry 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Buccaneers... wasn't their defense 23rd overall? Let's be quite frank: in 2008, the AFC dominated. The team with the most regular season wins (13) was in the AFC, the Superbowl Champions were in the AFC and the best playoff records were in the AFC. Now we all know that both of the West divions are pitiful, and that this year the nfc champs had one more win than the afc champs did, but let's take a look back the wildcard contenders. The 11-5 Patriots had to stay home because in the AFC that record was not good enough to compete for a Super Bowl appearance, while the NFC Eagles (9-6-1) went to the playoffs. I would say that the AFC is more competitive. The playoff contenders change drastically year to year (Ie Dolphins/Patriots). Whereas the NFC playoff teams are usually the same. In the last ten years it is quite obvious that in head to head matches (Super Bowl) the afc teams are victorious against the nfc teams. Patriots sb: 3 Steelers sb:2 Colts sb:1 Ravens sb:1 One might say "But the nfc won the pro-bowl..." and to that I have just two words to say: Detroit Lions.
2016-03-28 09:27:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can use all the stats you want, but they are basically flawed. AFC teams play most of their games against other AFC teams. Same with the NFC. So if they all beat up on each other, nobody really comes out ahead. About the only way you can really compare the two right now is to look at interconference records, which shows a bit of an edge for the NFC at the moment.
The main theme of the league is parity this year. It doesn't matter which conference you are in, just about anyone can win on any given week. A few teams like the Bears or Colts are a little better than the rest of the competition, but that's about all you can say. Neither conference is really dominant by any stretch of the imagination.
2006-10-27 09:21:21 · answer #3 · answered by Brian 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The AFC in my mind is more competitive right now! If Playoffs started in a week, you wouldn't know which Teams in the AFC would be in. In NFC, there are only about 7 Teams or so in the Race, that are close, and with Winning records! 7 Teams Playing for 6 spots.
2006-10-27 09:27:52 · answer #4 · answered by td 06 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
AFC vs NFC head to head:
2003: 34-30
2004: 44-20 (domination)
2005: 34-30
10+ win teams
2003: AFC-7 NFC-6
2004: AFC-6 NFC-3 (ugly)
2005: AFC-7 NFC-6
2006-10-27 10:28:58 · answer #5 · answered by freak_oftheindustry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that over the past decade the AFC has been slightly to moderatley better than the NFC, but as many have said, this season appears to be a trasnsition year for the NFL. The godd teams are declining, the bad teams are rising, Lat years satrs are slowing down, rookies and second year players are rising etc. This year the NFC is defintley now the better conference, as you have carefully outlined.
2006-10-27 10:53:46 · answer #6 · answered by FootballFan1012 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that the afc is way better then the nfc simply because there's more competition in the afc then there is in the nfc and competition is what makes for excitement and take a look at who's been winning more superbowls lately it's the afc my friend
2006-10-27 09:47:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
AFC but the NFC has really made strides this year to close the gap. Don't be surprised to see a NFC team win the Superbowl.
2006-10-27 09:28:19 · answer #8 · answered by Chris T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After the 49ers Cowboyrs era the AFC has been traditionally dominant (the NFC usually more competative, but the AFC having the top-teams ...although it doesn't hurt that 2 divisions are very uncompetitive --Colts & Pats --not saying they're not good, but they have easy schedules that add to their image)
2006-10-27 09:22:33 · answer #9 · answered by Andy T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should look at the inter conference games, I think that AFC is leading. Besides AFC has dominate the superbowls in the last years
2006-10-27 10:55:45 · answer #10 · answered by Atreides1998 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I still say AFC is better. Those stats are misleading because the NFC is getting those stats by beating other bad NFC teams.
2006-10-27 09:22:04 · answer #11 · answered by Scotty B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋