Who has a tougher division...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Who has a tougher division


  • Total voters
    45

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
41
#26
You should have compared the AFC west to another AFC division.


AFC hasn't always been better, but they've won the majority of the Superbowls this decade. The NFC was the shit when the 9ers and Cowboys were winning it all, and then it took a shift. Look at the record of AFC-NFC wins and losses this year. I dunno what it is but I know halfway through the season last year it was lopsided as fuck. I remember reading articles two and three years ago how everyone called the NFC West the "NFC Worst".
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
41
#29
^I think the reason you're right is because the NFC West doesn't have teams as good as the AFC West. Since the NFC West is more mediocre, there's more competition. I dunno if that's what you were getting at or not.
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
48
#31
Stealth said:
^I think the reason you're right is because the NFC West doesn't have teams as good as the AFC West. Since the NFC West is more mediocre, there's more competition. I dunno if that's what you were getting at or not.
That makes good sense! But I still would say the AFC West is still tougher. Just think of the homefields in the AFC West.. Oakland has the blackhole with our fans, K.C. probably has the loudest stadium in the NFL, and when teams play in Denver they get tired up there.

And every team in the AFC West has to face the Chargers twice a year. The Chargers and K.C. damn near combined to score a 100 points against the 49ers. ha
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,613
4
0
48
#32
I could only imagine what the opposition say when they gotta play against a afc west team. Id take playing 2x cards, rams 9ers any day. Seattle had one of those injury plagued seasons but had a solid playoff run.....

The only thing fans at monstar park got to worry about is whether or not the hot dogs taste like shit!
 
Apr 25, 2002
9,595
5
38
#35
45park1904 said:
^^LOL AT YOUR TWO CENTS
Why?

People act like the AFC West is the shit and has always been the shit. As of right now it is one of the best divisions in the league, but that hasn't always been the case and it won't always be the case either. That's what I'm talking about.

As of last year there was one good team, two mediocre teams and one horrible team. That's still better than the NFC West was last year, but still not enough to act like it's the shit.
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
39
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#37
The only thing close to a mediocre team in the AFC West is the Raiders, but that is changing (hopefully). But Denver, SD, and KC could tear shit up in any other division in the NFL. And no, I'm not just trying to "build up" Oakland's division to make an excuse to why they suck. KC is probably the weakest of the three, but they still got LJ and T. Gonzalez and company. There are no free games in the AFC West, there haven't been any the last few years, and there won't be any in the near future.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#38
Stealth said:
^I think the reason you're right is because the NFC West doesn't have teams as good as the AFC West. Since the NFC West is more mediocre, there's more competition. I dunno if that's what you were getting at or not.
Yeah that's pretty much right. The question isn't which division is better, it's who has a tougher division.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,283
113
#39
2-0-Sixx said:
I thought I already did:

"The NFC West is going to be much more competitive and I believe this year all four teams will be fighting for the top spot, whereas the AFC west two teams will likely suck..."
The same thing was said last year and 3 teams ended up .500 or worse. The Cards were supposed to be the pick to win and they ended up LAST in the division. I dont expect them to be much better again this year. The Rams are shaky as best and the recievers are all a year older. They better gear up S-Jack again. The 9ers SHOULD be better, but so shoud the Hawks. The Hawks and Niners are the only ones that made moves that were even mentionalbe in the NFC West and there was really NO major "wow" signings be either squad. Kerney? Davis? Are you kidding me? Better than the ones they replaced? Im not sold....

Whereas in the AFC West, SD is lookin good as last year with Rivers having a yeart under him now, The Broncos made TONS of moves and KC is peaking. I wont even mention the Raiders. Last year, 3 out of 4 teams in the AFC West were vying for a playoff spot till week 16; thats just insane.

Would Seattle even be playoff contneders in the AFC West? Or any other NFC division for that matter? Sometimes i thank the football gods for being in that poor excuse for a division.

So through all that, you STILL think the NFC West is better or gonna be better? I dont know about all that bro. I mean, we can only ait and see, but at this very moment, the AFC West looks better on paper, yet again, than the NFC Wor...er...West.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#40
Lamberto Quintero said:
The only thing close to a mediocre team in the AFC West is the Raiders, but that is changing (hopefully).
The Raiders aren't mediocre, they suck ass, they're horrible, bottom of the barrel, crappy, etc.

But Denver, SD, and KC could tear shit up in any other division in the NFL.
Denver and KC are questionable because they both will have two very young QB's.

But Denver, SD, and KC could tear shit up in any other division in the NFL.
Neither KC or Denver would have likely beat da bears, Saints, or Seattle, maybe even dallas in the playoffs.