The recent NFC winners

Brees#1 · Jun 18, 2019

I know this has to be something to acknowledge but most of the recent NFC winners have benefitted from screw-ups by other teams and well-coached teams being down.

The 2015 Panthers, 2016 Falcons, and 2018 Rams will never hold a candle to the 2009 Saints, 2010 Packers, 2011 Giants, 2013 Seahawks, and 2017 Eagles. Those latter teams simply were more layered. If the NFC can get Green Bay and Seattle back to relevance to go with NO and Philadelphia, then the NFC will be a problem for the AFC again.

Clayton · Jun 18, 2019

Brees#1 said:
I know this has to be something to acknowledge but most of the recent NFC winners have benefitted from screw-ups by other teams and well-coached teams being down.

The 2015 Panthers, 2016 Falcons, and 2018 Rams will never hold a candle to the 2009 Saints, 2010 Packers, 2011 Giants, 2013 Seahawks, and 2017 Eagles. Those latter teams simply were more layered. If the NFC can get Green Bay and Seattle back to relevance to go with NO and Philadelphia, then the NFC will be a problem for the AFC again.

The 2015 Panthers and 2016 Falcons were clearly the best teams in the NFC.

Dr. Strangelove · Jun 18, 2019

Clayton said:
The 2015 Panthers and 2016 Falcons were clearly the best teams in the NFC.

I agree and the 2010 Packers were a WC team that got on a magical run. This is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

Clayton said:
The 2015 Panthers and 2016 Falcons were clearly the best teams in the NFC.

Not sure how you can say that about the Falcons, at least that they were clearly the best. They were 2 games behind the Cowboys in the standings that year. Dallas had 3 regular season losses, two of those by a FG or less to the 11-5 Giants and one on the last week of the year with a lot of starters sitting out. They won 3 regular season games against playoff teams, including games at 11-5 Pittsburgh and at 10-6 GB (who avenged the loss with a 3 point win over Dallas in the playoffs at the buzzer).

eaglesnut · Jun 18, 2019

The AFC has been a disgrace for years.

The Patriots have had it easy.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

eaglesnut said:
The AFC has been a disgrace for years.

The Patriots have had it easy.

AFC has won 5 of the last 7 Super Bowls, with 3 different winners. You are wrong.

Fountain City Blues · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
Not sure how you can say that about the Falcons, at least that they were clearly the best. They were 2 games behind the Cowboys in the standings that year. Dallas had 3 regular season losses, two of those by a FG or less to the 11-5 Giants and one on the last week of the year with a lot of starters sitting out. They won 3 regular season games against playoff teams, including games at 11-5 Pittsburgh and at 10-6 GB (who avenged the loss with a 3 point win over Dallas in the playoffs at the buzzer).

Eh, the Falcons had a much more stable path to success than either the Giants (lolEli) or the Cowboys. You're the same exact guy who has argued Dak ain't shit without Zeke, a RB. Ironic as that may be given the Falcons have kinda stepped on their dicks since then, but not because their offense per se.

Unless you think Matt Ryan = Dak

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

There is A Moose at 3rd said:
Eh, the Falcons had a much more stable path to success than either the Giants (lolEli) or the Cowboys. You're the same exact guy who has argued Dak ain't shit without Zeke, a RB. Ironic as that may be given the Falcons have kinda stepped on their dicks since then, but not because their offense per se.

Unless you think Matt Ryan = Dak

The Cowboys were a whole lot more than Dak and Zeke that year. They had one of the stingiest defenses in the NFL, and while I don't think Dak is elite (I don't believe he "ain't shit" without Zeke, as I've said multiple times recently that he's a good QB), their offense was still more than capable of beating the Falcons, especially considering how horrible Atlanta's defense was (25th in total defense, 27th in scoring defense). Atlanta was obviously very good, but they were far from being "clearly" better than Dallas.

Fountain City Blues · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
The Cowboys were a whole lot more than Dak and Zeke that year. They had one of the stingiest defenses in the NFL, and while I don't think Dak is elite (never once have I said he "ain't shit" without Zeke), their offense was still more than capable of beating the Falcons, especially considering how horrible Atlanta's defense was (25th in total defense, 27th in scoring defense). Atlanta was obviously very good, but they were far from being "clearly" better than Dallas.

Was that defense actually a real thing or just fake stat manipulation and tempo? I really don't think it is. Their DVOA on defense 18th, ATL was 26th, and if you remember ATL's defense had several outstanding young starters that were surging to end that season. They're a lot closer to each other than you are implying.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

There is A Moose at 3rd said:
Was that defense actually a real thing or just fake stat manipulation and tempo? I really don't think it is.

Seriously? Only one team (Pittsburgh) hit 30 points against them, and they held half of their opponents under 20.

Fountain City Blues · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
Seriously? Only one team (Pittsburgh) hit 30 points against them, and they held half of their opponents under 20.

Eh, the Chiefs defense was garbage that year too and they had a similar schtick as far as points allowed to hide big and systemic issues they're still working through. Dallas just drafted better on D than KC did from that point.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

There is A Moose at 3rd said:
Eh, the Chiefs defense was garbage that year too and they had a similar schtick as far as points allowed to hide big and systemic issues they're still working through. Dallas just drafted better on D than KC did from that point.

Kansas City was 24th in yards allowed that year while Dallas was 14th, not the same thing.

2016 KC defense was like 2018 Cleveland - teams could move the ball on them at will, but fortunately they were opportunistic about forcing turnovers.

rmilia1 · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
Not sure how you can say that about the Falcons, at least that they were clearly the best. They were 2 games behind the Cowboys in the standings that year. Dallas had 3 regular season losses, two of those by a FG or less to the 11-5 Giants and one on the last week of the year with a lot of starters sitting out. They won 3 regular season games against playoff teams, including games at 11-5 Pittsburgh and at 10-6 GB (who avenged the loss with a 3 point win over Dallas in the playoffs at the buzzer).

Because they started 5-4 and then blew the doors off every NFC team they played the rest of the year . By far the best team in the NFC by year's end

2010 GB was not only a WC but the 6 seed . They were basically a worse version of 2012 Baltimore

2011 Giants were basically the same .
2015 Carolina went 15-1 so I have zero idea what OP is doing including them either lol

eaglesnut · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
AFC has won 5 of the last 7 Super Bowls, with 3 different winners. You are wrong.

The Patriots get to coast while the NFC fights each other.

You would have figured that out if you had the aptitude.

The beauty is the Eagles beat them anyway. :first:

Clayton · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
Not sure how you can say that about the Falcons, at least that they were clearly the best. They were 2 games behind the Cowboys in the standings that year. Dallas had 3 regular season losses, two of those by a FG or less to the 11-5 Giants and one on the last week of the year with a lot of starters sitting out. They won 3 regular season games against playoff teams, including games at 11-5 Pittsburgh and at 10-6 GB (who avenged the loss with a 3 point win over Dallas in the playoffs at the buzzer).

Thats fair enough. Of the two teams, the Falcons are the easier one to pick apart for the reasons you mentioned. Dak hitting a wall unfortunately is something you see in sports. Not going to Mahomes any names but when you're a 1 seed with a new QB then it isnt too shocking to see some issues.

The Falcons did win their two playoff games by 16 and 23 before reaching the Super Bowl. Good football team.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

rmilia1 said:
Because they started 5-4 and then blew the doors off every NFC team they played the rest of the year . By far the best team in the NFC by year's end

2010 GB was not only a WC but the 6 seed . They were basically a worse version of 2012 Baltimore

2011 Giants were basically the same .
2015 Carolina went 15-1 so I have zero idea what OP is doing including them either lol

Seriously? They were never 5-4 that year. They were 7-5 after the first week of December, they lost to Philly week 10, and barely beat New Orleans in week 17 with their starters. They were by no means whatsoever the best team "by far", that's idiotic.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

eaglesnut said:
The Patriots get to coast while the NFC fights each other.

You would have figured that out if you had the aptitude.

The beauty is the Eagles beat them anyway.

AFC has won 5 of the last 7 Super Bowls, with 3 different winners. You are wrong.

Across The Field · Jun 18, 2019

Clayton said:
Thats fair enough. Of the two teams, the Falcons are the easier one to pick apart for the reasons you mentioned. Dak hitting a wall unfortunately is something you see in sports. Not going to Mahomes any names but when you're a 1 seed with a new QB then it isnt too shocking to see some issues.

The Falcons did win their two playoff games by 16 and 23 before reaching the Super Bowl. Good football team.

Very fair points. The Cowboys were a phenomenal team in the regular season, but when the heart and soul of your offense is two rookies, you're going to see an experienced vet like Rodgers be able to win those sorts of games. Atlanta was obviously a really, really good team that year.

rmilia1 · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
Seriously? They were never 5-4 that year. They were 7-5 after the first week of December, they lost to Philly week 10, and barely beat New Orleans in week 17 with their starters. They were by no means whatsoever the best team "by far", that's idiotic.

They led NO 38-13 and played the 4th with backup defensive guys and yes they were 6-4 after they lost to Philly . Atlanta steamrolled every NFC team they played late in the year . The NO game was the only game they didn't win by 17 plus and that was solely a function of being ahead by 4 TDs going into the 4th

Clayton · Jun 18, 2019

Across The Field said:
Very fair points. The Cowboys were a phenomenal team in the regular season, but when the heart and soul of your offense is two rookies, you're going to see an experienced vet like Rodgers be able to win those sorts of games.

I also think that playing 'playoff football' also makes you vulnerable to big plays and special teams mistakes. Cowboys were a 'grind it out' team. Rodgers is the king of big plays. It happens.

The recent NFC winners

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oaky Afterbirth

Well-Known Member

Oaky Afterbirth

Love Everybody

Oaky Afterbirth

Love Everybody

Oaky Afterbirth

Love Everybody

Oaky Afterbirth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oaky Afterbirth

Oaky Afterbirth

Oaky Afterbirth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads