The NFC has some decent teams. The Bears are fairly good and the Saints have a pretty amazing offense, but comparitivly they could really use some more talent. The AFC has: the Superbowl champions, The Colts, the best defense in the NFL, The Ravens, potentially the best overall team in the NFL, the Chargers, and of course the playoff dominating Patriots. The Bears really are good but they weren't any match for the Colts. They were playing a dome team in bad weather and they got trampled. Does anyone see any NFC teams that have alot of potential? New Orleans needs some compitition and it would be nice if two teams played the Superbowl, not just one.
2007-02-05 12:28:47 · 15 answers · asked by birdie 2 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
It comes down to more competent owners in the AFC, and more owners in the NFC trying for the get-better-by-plugging-holes mentality.
So I think AFC will be stronger than NFC for years to come.
But I do think the Bears and Saints were good this season and the Eagles showed marked signs of improvement on their offensive line as the season went on, so they will be great to watch when McNabb returns. There were a few teams that could have been very strong this season if not for major injuries like Seattle. It gets pretty spotty.
2007-02-05 12:44:06 · answer #1 · answered by clawedlemew 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There seems to be a cycle. As dominant as the AFC is Right now, they have nothing on what the NFC had for years. For 13-14 years, the NFC destroyed the AFC in the Superbowl. Right now the AFC has the edge. I'm sure it will swing back eventually.
2007-02-05 20:45:56 · answer #2 · answered by tannedknight45 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well you would think, that the draft would make sucky teams better. That being said, the NFC should have started getting better a long time ago. Maybe it has something to do with the old ownership in the NFC not being smarter in the drafts of late. I have always been a believer that it starts at the top.
Good question birdie, what kind of bird?
Go BEARS!!!
2007-02-05 20:40:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference between the AFC and the NFC isn't as bad as it had been in the 70's so I guess the answer is that they aren't that far removed and they therefore have the respect of the AFC. In the 70's the NFC was bad. I guess you can say in the 80's the AFC was bad also.
2007-02-05 20:35:40 · answer #4 · answered by AngelKidd+JeffKidd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's just the way things are. The NFC was perhaps even more dominant (comparitively) in the 80s/90s. When guys like Manning and Brady and LT retire and the NFC's young guys grow up, I'm sure they'll be the dominant ones again.
2007-02-05 20:38:40 · answer #5 · answered by Andy T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NFC will come up in the next few years as the AFC keeps getting older. The NFC has been worse for a while now but the young players keep getting better.
2007-02-05 20:32:46 · answer #6 · answered by ronaldoradano 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on which team brings there "A" game, take a Look back there where games where the Colts were on the side of getting there butts kicked too. It is a unpredictable thing.
2007-02-05 20:31:47 · answer #7 · answered by Fatmatt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With free agency and the salary cap, there is mostly parity in the league. Good and bad teams are cyclical.
2007-02-05 20:32:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tomorrow...
or... wait!
I don't know... :(
isn't there more meaningful things in life besides professional-overpaid-overrated-capitalistic-money hungry-sports teams?!
become politically involved -this country is supposed to be ran by THE PEOPLE!!!
2007-02-05 20:33:46 · answer #9 · answered by john1christian2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on with team is peaking at the right time.
2007-02-05 20:36:30 · answer #10 · answered by Judas Rabbi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋