The AFC North only has the best record because they played against the NFC South, which is a dumpster fire. I'd put the AFC East above them: Buffalo, New England, and Miami are all tough.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The Everything NFL Punter Thread - 2014/2015 Season
- Thread starter Stallion
- Start date
- Status
Um, please explain to me how Pittsburgh was "nearly beaten" by the Jags?
some hero - Rivers, Ryan and Eli were very good this year, but you're on drugs if you think they deserved to be in the pro bowl INSTEAD of Roethlisberger. Every single one of Roethlisberger's stats is above all of theirs, so I really don't see how you could make a statement like that.
DetroitLolcat - While I share your sentiment that the AFC North's records may be inflated due to schedules, they are still a better overall division than the AFC East. The Patriots are easily better than all four North teams, but the Bills, Dolphins and Jets are all worse than the Steelers, Ravens and Bungles and the Browns I would put somewhere between the Dolphins and Jets. I would, as objectively as possible, rank them in the following order combined:
1. Patriots
T-2. Steelers and Ravens
3. Bengals
T-4.5. Bills and Dolphins
6. Browns
23. Jets
IMO the divisions I'd rank like this:
1. NFC West (narrowly)
2. AFC West
3. AFC North
T-4. NFC East and AFC East
5. NFC North
6. NFC South
7. AFC South
I agree that Pittsburgh has been maddeningly inconsistent this season but I'd like to point out that the have mostly been bad against poor teams. For whatever reason they like to play up/down to their opponents. If anything this should help the steelers not hurt them in the playoffs
I'd put NFC North 3rd. Green Bay and Detroit are both top 5 teams in the NFC, Mineesota is average, Chicago still has a lot of talent despite the dumpster fire they've become. Head to head against the NFC East, I'd take Green Bay over Dallas, Detroit over Philadelphia, Minnesota and New York is a coinflip, and Chicago over Washington.
AFC North is also a product of their schedule this year. Head to head with the NFC North, I'd take Green Bay over Cincinnati, Detroit over Pittsburgh, Baltimore over Minnesota, and Cleveland and Chicago is a coinflip.
Divisions ranks:
NFC West
AFC West
NFC North
NFC East - AFC North
AFC North is also a product of their schedule this year. Head to head with the NFC North, I'd take Green Bay over Cincinnati, Detroit over Pittsburgh, Baltimore over Minnesota, and Cleveland and Chicago is a coinflip.
Divisions ranks:
NFC West
AFC West
NFC North
NFC East - AFC North
You say that as if it were in the final 2 minutes of the game. This was three and a half minutes into the fourth quarter...
Nova - I would mostly agree with your head to heads, but I believe Pittsburgh is a better team than Detroit. Also, saying the entire AFC North is a product of their schedule is not really accurate considering the top 3 teams in that division consistently make the playoffs, and the schedule changes every year. You could say the Browns' record is a product of the schedule, but the other three teams don't deserve to be diminished that way.
Additionally, saying the NFC North is better with a head-to-head comparison like that is misleading, because you have to look at the sum of the parts. Much like the AFC East, the NFC North has the Packers who are the best team, being better than the best team in the AFC North. However, the gap is not that large, and all three of the top AFC North teams are very similar in worth. The Lions would probably fall in with them as well. However, after that logjam there is a considerable gap before you reach the bottom three teams, which imo are all pretty close. If you were to use a points system to rate the teams rather than a head to head comparison, you'd see the division scores change like so:
Packers - 9
Ravens - 8
Steelers - 8
Lions - 8
Bengals - 8
Vikings - 5
Browns - 5
Bears - 5
This, for example, leaves the NFC North with a combined score of 27, and the AFC North with 29, making them slightly better. This of course is just a rough set of numbers I typed in off my head, but I probably wouldn't change them all that much. This is more just a representation of how my thinking works when I rate a division.
Ranking divisions is hard though anyway considering the parity in the NFL, so I guess this is an almost pointless argument to make in the first place.
Last edited:
Buffalo and Miami are tough but Pittsburgh and Baltimore (two of the most successful franchises) of the last 15 years arent?
Going purely by WL records, the divisions would be:
1 AFC North: 36-23-1
2 NFC West: 35-25
3 NFC North: 33-27
T-4 AFC East: 31-29
T-4 AFC West: 31-29
6 NFC East: 30-30
7 AFC South: 23-37
8 NFC South: 20-39-1
If you're worried about strength of schedule (after all, it shows the best division also played the two worst), there's a simple way that basically just factors in the opponent's W-L record. Basically, add up the win percentages of all the opponents on a schedule, to get strength of schedule. Then subtract 1 for each loss, and 1/2 for each tie. If you have a stronger strength of schedule, you can afford to subtract an extra loss or two, and vice versa.
Here would be the divisions ranked by that score
1 NFC West: +6.500
2 AFC North: +4.400
3 AFC West: +2.900
4 AFC East: +2.367
5 NFC North: +2.067
6 NFC East: -1.700
7 AFC South: -7.367
8 NFC South: -9.800
By the way, here would be the power rankings of each team taking into account the strength of schedule (it seems really close to straight W-L records, and the strength of schedule doesn't do much more than tiebreakers, with only 3 exceptions that I saw). It's what I used to calculate the division scores.
Obviously the method isn't perfect but it was just an interesting set of stats I came across.
1 AFC North: 36-23-1
2 NFC West: 35-25
3 NFC North: 33-27
T-4 AFC East: 31-29
T-4 AFC West: 31-29
6 NFC East: 30-30
7 AFC South: 23-37
8 NFC South: 20-39-1
If you're worried about strength of schedule (after all, it shows the best division also played the two worst), there's a simple way that basically just factors in the opponent's W-L record. Basically, add up the win percentages of all the opponents on a schedule, to get strength of schedule. Then subtract 1 for each loss, and 1/2 for each tie. If you have a stronger strength of schedule, you can afford to subtract an extra loss or two, and vice versa.
Here would be the divisions ranked by that score
1 NFC West: +6.500
2 AFC North: +4.400
3 AFC West: +2.900
4 AFC East: +2.367
5 NFC North: +2.067
6 NFC East: -1.700
7 AFC South: -7.367
8 NFC South: -9.800
By the way, here would be the power rankings of each team taking into account the strength of schedule (it seems really close to straight W-L records, and the strength of schedule doesn't do much more than tiebreakers, with only 3 exceptions that I saw). It's what I used to calculate the division scores.
1 Patriots: +4.633
2 Broncos: +4.233
3 Seahawks: +4.033
4 Cardinals: +3.933
5 Packers: +2.967
6 Cowboys: +2.867
7 Lions: +2.767
8 Bengals: +2.733
9 Colts: +2.567
10 Chargers: +1.600
11 Steelers: +1.467
12 Eagles: +1.433
13 Ravens: +1.233
14 Dolphins: +0.933
15 Chiefs: +0.667
16 Bills: +0.533
17 Texans: -0.033
18 49ers: -0.200
19 Browns: -1.033
20 Panthers: -1.067
21 Rams: -1.267
22 Saints: -1.367
23 Vikings: -1.633
24 Falcons: -1.733
25 Bears: -2.033
26 Giants: -2.133
27 Raiders: -3.600
28 Jets: -3.733
29 Redskins: -3.867
30 Jaguars: -4.300
31 Buccaneers: -5.633
32 Titans: -5.700
2 Broncos: +4.233
3 Seahawks: +4.033
4 Cardinals: +3.933
5 Packers: +2.967
6 Cowboys: +2.867
7 Lions: +2.767
8 Bengals: +2.733
9 Colts: +2.567
10 Chargers: +1.600
11 Steelers: +1.467
12 Eagles: +1.433
13 Ravens: +1.233
14 Dolphins: +0.933
15 Chiefs: +0.667
16 Bills: +0.533
17 Texans: -0.033
18 49ers: -0.200
19 Browns: -1.033
20 Panthers: -1.067
21 Rams: -1.267
22 Saints: -1.367
23 Vikings: -1.633
24 Falcons: -1.733
25 Bears: -2.033
26 Giants: -2.133
27 Raiders: -3.600
28 Jets: -3.733
29 Redskins: -3.867
30 Jaguars: -4.300
31 Buccaneers: -5.633
32 Titans: -5.700
Obviously the method isn't perfect but it was just an interesting set of stats I came across.
I believe Strength of Schedule shows things the way they are better than W-L records. For example, everyone could see the Raiders sucked, and I hate them, but I always thought it was unfair to put them dead last in all Power Rankings, since they hung in there with Seattle, NE and SD, and were up against formidable foes.
Also, fuck the Raiders.
Also, fuck the Raiders.
The thing is, there is so much parity in the NFL that strength of schedule only tells part of the story. Look at a team like the Jets, who one week can go toe-to-toe with the Patriots and Steelers, and then the next week get blown out by a bad team. On paper, we know the Jets are one of the worst teams in the league. But you look at what they (and other bad teams) have been able to do at times and you are again reminded of the "any given sunday" rule.
My Colts in playoffs for the 3rd year !
I hope they pass the first round this year too.
I hope they pass the first round this year too.
Nobody in the league is playing at half of J.J. Watt's level.
But fuck that, GOOOOOO LIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But fuck that, GOOOOOO LIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Rodgers goes down with a non-contact leg injury
RIP packers
RIP packers
The quarterback who in 7 seasons has never passed for 4000 yards? Ok. I'd take Eli who is easily a top 10 qb and way better than Flacco.
- Status