Which is the best division in football?

[McTater 28]

Saw this on Nfl.com. I honestly think AFC North, but NFC West has a really good argument.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Did you not include the NFC South because it was so obvious it would win?

 

For srs though, its either the AFCN, NFCN, or NFCW.

 

AFCN you have Baltimore, Pitt, and Cincy as continuous playoff contenders with the Browns having a good deal of talent but a completely dysfunctional front office that prevents them from being any sort of real threat.

 

I think the fact that you have 3 constant playoff teams gives the AFCN the edge. But the NFCW is very very close. If the Niners hadn't completely fallen apart this offseason I might give it to them.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Just like in the Civil War, the North rules the day.

 

#lolTheSouth

[Cherry 1,302]

AFC West is a sleeper here. While the Raiders are mediocre they're definitely on the rise. The Chiefs and Chargers are both improving. If it weren't for chokefest Broncos I'd say they have a case.

 

All NFCW needs is a Cardinals QB and its insane.

[badgers 380]

I feel like the AFCN is best on paper but I don't trust those teams, especially Cincinnati and Baltimore. Pittsburgh's a different story but for those two teams I just don't see them in a position to win the championship next year.

 

I took the question as "which division has the most championship potential" btw and not which one is the most competitive within the division. So maybe I misunderstood you.

[Cherry 1,302]

Main argument is could see for AFCN is sustained success. I'm much more fearing of the NFC west though. Any team in the NFC west can win any week. The Rams, even as the bottom-feeder of the West, can put any team through a dog fight. The Seahawks nearly won a second super bowl. 49ers had a run of insane success. Cards are getting better and at one point had the best record in the league last year. I can't name a single team any NFCW team would not take to the wire.

[DBR96A 87]

The AFC North was the only division with three 10-win/playoff teams last season; therefore, they're the best division.

[oochymp 2,393]

AFC West is a sleeper here. While the Raiders are mediocre they're definitely on the rise. The Chiefs and Chargers are both improving. If it weren't for chokefest Broncos I'd say they have a case.

 

All NFCW needs is a Cardinals QB and its insane.

I thought a lot about the AFCW, they've got their dumpster fire in Oakland, but other than that Denver, KC, and San Diego are all at least solid at this point

 

The AFC North was the only division with three 10-win/playoff teams last season; therefore, they're the best division.

the 10 wins were definitely aided by the fact that the AFC North played both the AFC South and NFC South, which were almost unquestionably the worst two divisions last seasons

 

I also thought about the NFC North and NFC West because they're the two teams that don't really have at least one dumpster fire, but ultimately I think too many of the teams in those divisions are just mid-level teams

 

having said all of that, I went with the AFC North, they have their dumpster fire in Cleveland, but the trio of Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cincinnati is just a bit too strong to look anywhere else

[FartWaffles 1,857]

>

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Is SF even a playoff team anymore? The fact that they missed last year and had a horrible offseason this year makes it a legitimate question. I feel like they're headed back to their 7-9 days for a while.

[oochymp 2,393]

>

based on last season, I'd probably agree with you, but given what's happened in San Francisco this offseason I don't think this is the case any more, the NFC West is better at the bottom and top than most divisions, with Seattle being one of the best teams in the league and the Rams not being a complete dumpster fire, but the Cards and 49ers don't do enough to hold the division up

Edited March 30, 2015 by oochymp

[Cherry 1,302]

We haven't seen the new 49ers in action yet so we can't really fairly grade them. If they even pull 8-8 and Rams/Cards improve I'd say the division is undoubtedly better than the AFCN.

 

Cleveland is the only obvious glaring dumpster fire, but iirc Baltimore and Pittsburgh didn't even make playoffs last year. Pitt missed for multiple years. Bengals are the only team consistently getting in & they've been one and done every year. Seahawks and 49ers have split time in the last 3 superbowls, and if it weren't for Kyle Williams fumblefest there is a very good chance they'd have made it to 4 straight. The Cardinals, despite starting Drew Stanton, overwhelmed supposed superior competition and made it into the playoffs. The Rams went 6-10 despite losing Sam Bradford once again, and remained competitive in the division even beating a very strong Broncos team. It's not always good to look at one game, but a 52-0 shit dropped on the Raiders speaks a lot about the Rams. They can compete with anyone at any time, much like the rest of the NFCW. If Nick Foles proves to be a middle-of-the-pack guy they may get into the playoffs.

 

If there is a dumpster fire in the making out west it's San Fran, and they're still not the Browns.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Chernobyl426

[oochymp 2,393]

We haven't seen the new 49ers in action yet so we can't really fairly grade them. If they even pull 8-8 and Rams/Cards improve I'd say the division is undoubtedly better than the AFCN.

well sure, if you assume that half the division improves and that the team that's had at least as much turmoil as any other team in the league over the last six months holds where it was last year (SF did finish 8-8) then yes, that would be the best division in football, but I don't agree with that premise at all

 

what has St. Louis done to make you think they'll improve? same goes for Arizona, I'm assuming for them 'improve' means 'regain early season, when they had a QB, form' but Palmer's not getting younger and he's coming off another ACL injury, and do you really think the 49ers are going to be no worse than they were last year after losing all of their linebackers?

 

as I said before, the NFC West gets points for not having a complete dumpster fire, but they do have three teams that are no better than middle of the pack, I'll take three solid teams and a dumpster fire over one great team and three middling squads

[Cherry 1,302]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 49ers went a good portion of the season with Borland and Wilhoite at LB, right? Bowman and Wilhoite is better than who they had starting last year, so I'd say the LB situation is roughly the same. The only question around San Fran is how will the new coaching staff fair? That team from a change from last year has not went down the shitter like everyone thinks. It's still an 8-8 team, and possibly better.

 

Cardinals haven't changed much and should be getting Daryl Washington back. Palmer still an upgrade over Lindley and Stanton. The team will hover around the same area record-wise.

 

The Rams brought in a starting QB, and have a bunch of guys who are developing. They're an 8-8 team at this point.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Chernobyl426

[DBR96A 87]

the 10 wins were definitely aided by the fact that the AFC North played both the AFC South and NFC South, which were almost unquestionably the worst two divisions last seasons

 

But how do we know what the cause and effect is here? Why is it necessarily that the AFC North only looks good because they played the AFC South and NFC South? Why can't it be that the AFC South looks bad because they played the AFC North and NFC East, or that the NFC South looks bad because they played the AFC North and NFC North? The NFC East and NFC North both had two teams with at least 10 wins, so they're no slouches either.

[FartWaffles 1,857]

If you can look at yourself in the mirror and say that the Titans and Jaguars have the #2 and #3 overall draft picks respectfully, because they played the AFC North without cracking a smirk, well then there's no sense in debating with you anyways.

[DBR96A 87]

The Titans and Jaguars each played 10 teams with winning records last season, including seven games each against teams with at least 10 wins. They're not good teams, but they both had pretty tough schedules that made them look even worse.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

I thought a lot about the AFCW, they've got their dumpster fire in Oakland, but other than that Denver, KC, and San Diego are all at least solid at this point

 

the 10 wins were definitely aided by the fact that the AFC North played both the AFC South and NFC South, which were almost unquestionably the worst two divisions last seasons

 

I also thought about the NFC North and NFC West because they're the two teams that don't really have at least one dumpster fire, but ultimately I think too many of the teams in those divisions are just mid-level teams

 

having said all of that, I went with the AFC North, they have their dumpster fire in Cleveland, but the trio of Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cincinnati is just a bit too strong to look anywhere else

[BC 331]

It will be interesting because the divisions do actually play each other this upcoming year. The NFCW and AFCN, that is. I think the worst team in the AFCN is actually better than the worst team in the NFCW. I can picture a certain team in ours going 5-11 or 6-10. The worst team in the AFCN would be closer to 7-9. But I think overall, the NFCW teams will slightly edge out the AFCN in win % in terms of games in which teams from the two divisions face. Seattle vs PIT and BAL are going to be crazy games this year.

 

Edited March 31, 2015 by BC

[oochymp 2,393]

It will be interesting because the divisions do actually play each other this upcoming year. The NFCW and AFCN, that is. I think the worst team in the AFCN is actually better than the worst team in the NFCW. I can picture a certain team in ours going 5-11 or 6-10. The worst team in the AFCN would be closer to 7-9. But I think overall, the NFCW teams will slightly edge out the AFCN in win % in terms of games in which teams from the two divisions face. Seattle vs PIT and BAL are going to be crazy games this year.

 

would you really take Cleveland over St. Louis?

[DBR96A 87]

would you really take Cleveland over St. Louis?

 

He might be lobbing a grenade at the 49ers, but despite all that's gone wrong for them this off-season, the Browns haven't had a very fun off-season either. Basically, I'd take the Rams over the Browns bar none, and I might still take the 49ers over the Browns in the interim.