PDA

View Full Version : Is the AFCW really improved?


TheReverend
01-05-2011, 09:22 AM
A different "discussion" got me going over the divisions and how strong they are, as follows:

Divisions and wins

1. NFCS 36
1. AFCE 36
3. NFCN 33
3. AFCN 33
5. NFCE 32
6. AFCW 31
7. AFCS 30
8. NFCW 26

Without looking I had originally referred to the NFCS as the best division in football, considering how competitive the top three teams had been and how close they had come to supplying 3 playoff teams.

At closer look, I have to go with the AFCE. The NFCS played the AFCN, but they also had the fortune of playing the worst division in football in the NFCW. Meanwhile, the AFCE had the misfortune of competing against #3 AFCN and #3 NFCN.

I'm rambling... regardless, in light of this information how improved IS the AFCW when it can only supply one playoff team (the 4th seed, mind you) against the two worst divisions in football (AFCS and NFCW)?

I think KC and Oakland's "rise" are a fallacy and will not be hard to both catch and surpass with a solid offseason and coaching.

Missouribronc
01-05-2011, 09:25 AM
Improved from what? Last year?

The Chargers underperformed tremendously and were injured. The Broncos were the same. The Chiefs had a weak schedule, only beating one team with a winning record (if memory serves) and the Raiders went 6-0 in the division and 2-8 out of it.

This division stunk. I can't see how it was improved over last year, or really, even from the beginning of the year. I think the Chargers and Broncos regressed even as the season went on.

Mediator12
01-05-2011, 09:29 AM
A different "discussion" got me going over the divisions and how strong they are, as follows:

Divisions and wins

1. NFCS 36
1. AFCE 36
3. NFCN 33
3. AFCN 33
5. NFCE 32
6. AFCW 31
7. AFCS 30
8. NFCW 26

Without looking I had originally referred to the NFCS as the best division in football, considering how competitive the top three teams had been and how close they had come to supplying 3 playoff teams.

At closer look, I have to go with the AFCE. The NFCS played the AFCN, but they also had the fortune of playing the worst division in football in the NFCW. Meanwhile, the AFCE had the misfortune of competing against #3 AFCN and #3 NFCN.

I'm rambling... regardless, in light of this information how improved IS the AFCW when it can only supply one playoff team (the 4th seed, mind you) against the two worst divisions in football (AFCS and NFCW)?

I think KC and Oakland's "rise" are a fallacy and will not be hard to both catch and surpass with a solid offseason and coaching.

8. Should be the NFCW not NFCS. Also, did the same in your paragragh.

The AFCW did not play well this year, at all. I agree that KC and OAK benefitted from a real weak schedule, but the AFCS is not as bad as their record. They were all just .500 type teams this year that had horrible injuries all over the division that made them even worse record wise.

I think the better divisions struggled less with personnel turnover from major injuries and even SD missed players for Injuries AND holdouts ( BTW, F you AJ for being an arrogant Prick, you got what you deserved finally LOL ). The NFCW really just has NO QB's worth a damn (Minus the rookie Bradford) and killed their teams eventually. They are all solid teams with no QB IMHO.

As for the AFCE and AFCN, they had the biggest disparity in good to bad teams, but won their close games more often than not. Weird year, with injuries making it much worse for some teams and even whole divisions.

TheReverend
01-05-2011, 09:30 AM
8. Should be the NFCW not NFCS. Also, did the same in your paragragh.

Woops. Got NFCS on the brain.

TonyR
01-05-2011, 09:35 AM
Here's how Sagarin ranks them:

1 (afc east)
2 (afc north)
3 (NFC NORTH)
4 (NFC SOUTH)
5 (NFC EAST)
6 (afc south)
7 (afc west)
8 (NFC WEST)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip

TheReverend
01-05-2011, 09:43 AM
Here's how Sagarin ranks them:

1 (afc east)
2 (afc north)
3 (NFC NORTH)
4 (NFC SOUTH)
5 (NFC EAST)
6 (afc south)
7 (afc west)
8 (NFC WEST)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip

I think I'd be inclined to agree with that 100%

Kaylore
01-05-2011, 09:45 AM
You could argue this year we just traded records with the Chiefs. The Raiders got better a few games. So really we're looking a couple games better. And half those games came against AFCW opponents so it's kind of a wash.

bronco militia
01-05-2011, 09:46 AM
who thinks the AFC West has improved?

TheReverend
01-05-2011, 09:52 AM
who thinks the AFC West has improved?

Would "rest of AFCW" make more sense?

Regardless, I think it's scheduling smoke and mirrors

gyldenlove
01-05-2011, 10:57 AM
The AFCW is the 2nd worst division is football, and only thanks to the historical suckiness of the NFCW.

San Diego has been on a steady decline since Norv Turner rode into town, they have less talent now than they have had at any point in the last 5 years and given their recent history that is not likely to change.

Oakland is still a bad team, aside from their remarkable 6-0 in the AFCW, they are 2-8 against the AFCS and NFCW + Miami and Pittsburgh. Unless they hire a wizard to be the next head coach they will be back to 5 wins next year.

Kansas City is improved, by virtue of being so bad getting worse was an impossibility and some solid coaching. With Weis gone, it is difficult to tell what will happen over there, but their record is not a true relfection of how good or bad they are, it is a result of an easy schedule featuring only 3 games against teams with a winning record, Indy and twice San Diego, it also featured only a single game against a team that at the time had a winning record (Houston).

Denver is obviously regressed, the defense is at an all time low being last in the league in points, yards, rush yards, sacks and turnovers. The offense put up some good yard numbers, but failed to convert on 3rd downs and in the red zone.

As a whole this division is weak, San Diego lives and dies by Phyllis Rivers, Kansas City was able to negotiate a biblically weak schedule into the division win and the lowest division winner seed in the conference, Oakland is still not a good football team and with no defense and an offense that couldn't perform when needed it is going to take some serious tinkering to get winning.

JDub15
01-05-2011, 11:22 AM
Yes, other posters are intelligent to consider Schedule and Health as major factors, but here's my take:

2010 KC - One of the easiest schedules in the league, one of the healthiest teams in the league, Matt Cassell's numbers look great until you realized he faced a slate of historically easy pass defenses. They have played poorly down the stretch and IMO will be eliminated handily by Blatimore in the WC round. This team screams for regression in 2011

2010 OAK - Wildly inconsistent, vacillating between dominate and putrid. Fairly easy schedule, very healthy. The defense was league average, but lead the league in adjusted sack rate (% of times QB sacked adjusted for passes thrown against the defense). With Cable gone, no first round pick, and still no good option at QB, unless this team has a good off-season it's hard to imagine them improving, more likely that they either tread water or regress.

2010 SD - Wildly inconsistent, great offense and great defense but historically bad special teams. Norv Turner somehow keeps his job which is a good thing for the rest of the AFC West. AJ Smith has been a bad GM ever since Marty left town. The defense seemed like a fluke this year and should regress in 2011, especially if they let underrated NT Antonio Guary walk (crazy haircut aside). Still the favorite to win the division next year.

2010 DEN - Defense decimated by injuries (probably the most injured unit on either side of the ball), Offense improved vastly from 2009 but could not make up for other shortcomings. Lost some close/fluky games and is probably closer to a 6-10 team than a 4-12 team. They will be healthier in 2011, and the defense will improve, and thus the record.

Tebow is the big unknown in predicting 2011, the offense as whole experienced a slight up-tick with him at QB vs. Orton, but if we throw out the games were Orton was reportedly playing hurt (KC & ARI) - then the offense was slightly worse with Tebow. Wouldn't be surprised to see them finish 6-10 with bad luck or 10-6 with good luck.

Ironically Denver was the healthiest team in 2010 - especially the defense. We saw how that changed this year.

Cito Pelon
01-05-2011, 11:58 AM
SD is still a pretty good team. I looked at turnover differential and saw they were -7 in turnover differential for 2010 despite that vaunted #1 overall in both Offense and Defense.

For comparison, KC +9, OAK -2, Denver -9.

9 of the top 11 teams in turnover differential are in the playoffs. The other three playoff teams are Indy at -4, New Orleans at -6, and Seattle at -9.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TURNOVERS/2010/regular

bronco militia
01-05-2011, 11:59 AM
special teams killed the chargers, period

Mediator12
01-05-2011, 01:27 PM
SD is still a pretty good team. I looked at turnover differential and saw they were -7 in turnover differential for 2010 despite that vaunted #1 overall in both Offense and Defense.

For comparison, KC +9, OAK -2, Denver -9.

9 of the top 11 teams in turnover differential are in the playoffs. The other three playoff teams are Indy at -4, New Orleans at -6, and Seattle at -9.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TURNOVERS/2010/regular

Yep, TO margin is still the one stat that will help determine Wins and Losses in the NFL without any other analysis. Indy is usually +10 in TO margin, but the injuries have killed them this year and NO led the league in Takeaways last year. Crazy the fluctuations that helped cause this wacky year.

TheReverend
01-05-2011, 02:24 PM
Yep, TO margin is still the one stat that will help determine Wins and Losses in the NFL without any other analysis. Indy is usually +10 in TO margin, but the injuries have killed them this year and NO led the league in Takeaways last year. Crazy the fluctuations that helped cause this wacky year.

Without looking, I'd also assume they weren't scoring as much as early as they usually do. That defense was decimated by injuries, but even when healthy it's still built to play with a lead and pressure the passer into TO's. I might be completely off, but the Indy games I saw didn't have those commanding 1st quarter and 1st half leads of the past.