Which is Better: the NFC or AFC
It seems to be general consensus among NFL fans these days that the AFC is better than the NFC. How much credence does this public opinion hold?
The Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, and Seattle Seahawks are, by many, considered to be the best three teams in the NFC.
The best three teams in the AFC are usually said to be the New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Indianapolis Colts.
Let's see how these teams stack up against each other.
The Patriots are better than the Cowboys; they proved that when they went to Dallas and manhandled the Cowboys, 48-27.
Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Tony Romo—Brady has been more successful for longer—he's won three Super Bowls recently and was the MVP of two of them. Not to mention that Randy Moss is at least equal to if not better than TO.
The Steelers are better than the Giants. They've had a better defense for years. Last year, for example, the Steelers allowed about 266 YPG. The Giants gave up an average of 305 yards.
Pittsburgh's offense also has the edge—they averaged about 25 points in 2007. The Giants averaged about 23 points last season.
The Giants did win Super Bowl XLII in February, but the Steelers were still better in terms of its players. The most noticeable difference between the teams is the quarterbacks. The Steelers have Big Ben, who is better than the Giants' Eli. I don't care that the Giants won the Super Bowl; they won it with their defense.
The Colts and the Seahawks—do I even need to say it? The Colts are better—Peyton Manning is without a doubt better than Matt Hasselbeck (Hasselbeck is great, just not as amazing as Peyton). And Hasselbeck is just about the Seahawks' entire offense.
Indianapolis's defense also owns Seattle's; the Colts really improved and were third in the NFL in team defense in 2007, allowing a mere 279 YPG. The Seahawks' team defense was 15th in the NFL, giving up an average of about 322 yards.
But that's just scratching the surface.
As of November 23, 2007, since 1995 the AFC's record in interconference play is 370-300-2. Each year during that span the AFC has won the series, excluding 2000 and '01 when the NFC finished .500 (30-30).
Switching back to this year, the AFC has also won eight of the last 12 Super Bowls, and six of the last eight.
Said former Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre, "It's obscene, ridiculous, really, that the AFC has owned the NFC for so many years. It shouldn't be that way."
Despite Favre's comment, it's obvious that no matter whether it is justified or not, the AFC has been the mainstay powerhouse in the NFL for more than a decade.
The AFC is better than the NFC. But why? Better players, better coaches. Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and LaDainian Tomlinson are three of the best, most famous players in the NFL. They all play for AFC teams. Bill Belichick, Tony Dungy, and Bill Cowher are three of the most notorious coaches in the NFL in the last few years (even though Cowher didn't coach in 2007). They all headed AFC teams.
That means AFC GMs are better at their jobs than their NFC counterparts. The AFC GMs hired the right coaches and drafted the right players, while the NFC did the opposite. That shows that a more GMs in the AFC than in the NFC know how to run a pro football team.
It's no doubt that the AFC is better than the NFC, and it could be a long time before that changes.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?