The NFCN just gets weaker

[yetisnowman]

Let's break it down.

2014 Playoff Teams AFC
1. Patriots
2. Broncos
3. Steelers
4. Colts
5. Bengals
6. Ravens

Colts might be rising though run defense remains a concern at this point. Steelers have to rebuild an entire defense. Broncos have a new coach, an suddenly very old QB and despite appearances, a mediocre D. Bengals have Andy Dalton at the helm, who has yet to beat top competition on a regular basis. Ravens lost a big WR and their NT, hard to say, but I doubt they drop too far.

Out of these teams, only the Patriots and Colts would frighten the top NFC teams. Ravens maybe. Bills, if they can devise an offense might be tough, but Rex has a terrible record building offenses for his teams and he has another specialty QB at the helm.

NFL Playoffs

1. Seattle
2. Packers
3. Dallas
4. Carolina
5. Cardinals
6. Lions

Seattle and the Packers are a threat to beat any AFC on the road or in the Super Bowl. Dallas, similar to the Ravens only better, have some holes to fill (RB, LB) but if done competently can beat anyone, anywhere as well. Those top three teams outrank their AFC counterparts as a group. The Cardinals, though, provide a trump card. Like a weird combination of the Bengals and Ravens, to ascend to the top level, they are dependent on a QB who is not always available (in this case, its age and injuries). But while he is alive and playing, Palmer can led this team to a victory anywhere as well.

Lions have two big holes to fill plus straighten out an offense with Stafford minus Reggie Bush. Unlike the Bills, Caldwell might be the guy for the job as its his specialty. They might be more stressed to patch the D, though Ngata doesn't hurt. Carolina has a lot of pieces and a good D plus a franchise QB. But like the Bills, its not clear they know how to fix what ails them.

The Eagles should be on this list, but I don't know how to judge the Bradford acquisition.

Your assessment of Newton and Palmer is an interesting one. Palmer is 35 coming off his second acl tear and has never led his team to a playoff win. Newton has yet to win a playoff game either(sorry Az last year doesn't count). Detroit lost the best DT in football and Dallas lost a legitimate MVP candidate from last year.
Philly, San Fran, NO? All sort of a confusing mess.
3-10 in the AFC seems much more legit. I guess the way I look at it is if the Pack played a 16 game schedule playing each of those teams twice vs a 16 game schedule playing 3-10 in the NFC twice the latter would look much less daunting.

[yetisnowman]

I think it's pretty outlandish to think that the AFC is in any way competitive with the NFC at this point. Not at the top...

Outlandish to think they are in any way competive at the top? Their best team beat the NFC's best team so I would say that means they are in some way competive at the top. Hyperbole much?

[smuggler]

4 of the top 5 or 5 of the top 6 teams are in the NFC... how is that hyperbole?

[yetisnowman]

4 of the top 5 or 5 of the top 6 teams are in the NFC... how is that hyperbole?

Your original post was as hyperbolic as it gets, and innaccurate. Again the AFC's best team just won the super bowl, so it what way is the AFC not competetive at the top?

Furthermore, what is the basis for your contention that 5 of the NFL's best 6 teams are in NFC?

[Tony Oday]

Their best team didn't play the NFC's best team they beat the Seahawks...

[yetisnowman]

Their best team didn't play the NFC's best team they beat the Seahawks...

Lol, you guys are the biggest homers. We got Seattle at their absolute worst for 55 minutes and still couldn't beat them. Our offense has yet to be productive against this version of the Seattle team, and we have yet to beat them. Until that happens we are not the best team in the NFC.

[mraynrand]

We got Seattle at their absolute worst for 55 minutes and still couldn't beat them.

How do you know they played their worst, versus playing their best and being bested by the Packers? It's the age-old question. Were the Brits better at Agincourt, or did the French guys just have an off day? If you have such a method to determine effective team output over being dominated by the opposition, you should write an App. Every coach and leader of anything would want one.

[Rastak]

lol I like it

Ras the Vikings have an inept offense and you know it. Listening to PA every day leads me to believe that the Vikings think a guy that threw 14 TDs is the next Fran Tarkington is a bit of a stretch.

Now if the Vikes can fix their secondary they have a chance of being a decent 9-7 team if Asiata can be a good back and Teddy reduces his Td to Int ratio from 7:6 to more of a 3:1 ratio. Otherwise it makes the defense have to work way to hard.

There is your problem. I quit listening to PA quite a while ago when all he started talking about hockey constantly.

As for Teddy, not sure what his ceiling is but he was second to only 1 QB over the last 5 weeks of the season. Who was that? Your guy. I also like he had the 3rd best accuracy in NFL history for a rookie. Small sample size but I think it bodes well. We shall see.


edit: Asiata lost his starting role to McKinnon last season but he hurt his back. I'm not convinced yet Peterson won't be back by the way. He's under contract no matter what he wants and after last year can't afford to sit.

[Tony Oday]

Oh come on I love the Wild!!!

[yetisnowman]

How do you know they played their worst, versus playing their best and being bested by the Packers? It's the age-old question. Were the Brits better at Agincourt, or did the French guys just have an off day? If you have such a method to determine effective team output over being dominated by the opposition, you should write an App. Every coach and leader of anything would want one.

Because statistically they did play their worst in comparison to other games. Through 56 minutes they had around 140 yds of offense and 5 turnovers. All I can go on is logic and my gut and numbers. From a statistical standpoint our Defense and their offense playing that way for such a long stretch of the game was an anomaly. That's why all that crap with Bostick and the playcalling late should have been beyond irrelevant. They played so poorly and sloppily on offense for so much of the game, (like historically bad) that the game should have been over before any of that silliness happened.

[mraynrand]

Because statistically they did play their worst in comparison to other games.

But maybe it was just the Packers playing so well.

[yetisnowman]

But maybe it was just the Packers playing so well.

You are parsing what I am saying per usual. Sentences later I mentined the word anomaly. Their offense and our defense played in an uncharacteristic way. Its fine we are clearly the best team in the NFC. And the NFC is clearly superior to the AFC. Debating with Homers is futile.

[mraynrand]

Debating with Homers is futile.

yet you seem to continue. If we are all 'homers' then your efforts are futile. If we are something else, say interested fans with different perspectives, then debate might be interesting. Of course, debating with Trolls is futile.

[pbmax]

OK, let's try this angle. I don't think I am interested in Teams 9 and 10 in yeti's example. Not because he is disagreeable, but because the only group of teams the best of a conference are going to face together are the 1st and 2nd place finishers in each Division. 4 Divisions, 8 teams. Those are the one's that end up on the schedule of good teams. Especially true if we look backward to figure out who is good.

Now that isn't to say that tough but struggling teams don't matter. Ask the 49ers what its like in a Division with Seattle and Arizona. While you are doing this, the entire NFC South is laughing. But for measuring a conference, I like measuring against the top teams, not the toughest Division opponents.

Now I think Team 1-6 in the NFC versus AFC leans decidedly toward the NFC. Yeti feels that 3-10 leans AFC.

What about Teams 3-8?

[yetisnowman]

yet you seem to continue. If we are all 'homers' then your efforts are futile. If we are something else, say interested fans with different perspectives, then debate might be interesting. Of course, debating with Trolls is futile.

I'd say incessantly parsing and finding cute responses to small portions of what I say while completely ignoring the rest is much more trollish than anything I do. It isn't really a debate. I am happy to hear other perspectives. I just have a tough time dealing with such absolute claims some fans make that aren't backed up by fact or stats. And the subsequent inabilty to address my questions or counterpoints. It just seems that those kind of blinders are reserved for homerism.