Are we still an elite division?

JK17 · 09-10-2007, 08:33 PM

For the past couple years we've been, arguably, the toughest division in football with generally three strong to very strong teams. This year though, KC and Oakland both look to be down, leaving San Diego and Denver left to represent the division. Are we still at the top or have we fallen now?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 09-10-2007, 10:50 PM

I think if C-Pep comes in for Oakland, they can be tough to beat. They might not win many games, but they won't be an easy victory. San Diego is, IMO, the most talented team in the league, and the only team that can compare is the Patriots. That would be a great game in the AFCCG. Unfortunately Cutler will will his way past both of them.

P.S. Chargers suck.

JK17 · 09-10-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerChris

I think if C-Pep comes in for Oakland, they can be tough to beat. They might not win many games, but they won't be an easy victory. San Diego is, IMO, the most talented team in the league, and the only team that can compare is the Patriots. That would be a great game in the AFCCG. Unfortunately Cutler will will his way past both of them.

P.S. Chargers suck.

The only reason I could see Oakland being tough to beat would be in a rivalry situation, against one of our teams or Kansas City. I don't see enough motivation or talent otherwise, but, its been one week, and the offense did improve from last year, granted against hte Lions. So I could easily be proven wrong on that one, I just don't think I willl.....

Oh yeah, and the Broncos suck, will clearly go nowhere, and maybe they can hope to add some help with the #1 overall draft pick next year, its not fair to Cutler to make him struggle with such a poor team/coaching/managemnet/fan base and everything else wrong in the world.:p

bearsfan_51 · 09-10-2007, 11:18 PM

In a word, no.

NIN1984 · 09-11-2007, 05:38 PM

not with the raiders and chiefs in the west

villagewarrior · 09-12-2007, 07:40 AM

I think the Raiders have a good enough defense that they will be tough to beat, but not enough offensively. Same with the Chiefs, if they could get any kind of rhythm going they could step up and surprise a team here or there. I just don't see it happening.

bored of education · 09-12-2007, 07:52 AM

no we suck balls

adschofield · 09-17-2007, 03:51 PM

No, but we will continue to be one of the best for years to come. I think the AFC North is a lot tougher. All four teams are at least average.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 09-17-2007, 04:58 PM

I think every team in this division sucks, except the Chargers, who only semi-suck.

San Diego Chicken · 09-18-2007, 02:40 AM

Well, ever since Seattle was booted into the NFC, the AFC West has arguably been the strongest division in football, with the exception being 2003 when the Raiders and Chargers both sucked their way into top five picks. So I don't think it will drop off that much.

Crickett · 09-18-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

the browns are average? i'm sure that's news to a large number of people.

Not after they just put up 51 on the Bengals. Yeah, I know the Bengals D is bad, but they're not THAT bad.

JK17 · 09-18-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crickett

Not after they just put up 51 on the Bengals. Yeah, I know the Bengals D is bad, but they're not THAT bad.

No, they are, that bad. That's an abberation, not something they will come close to compiling the rest of the year, let alone in a game.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 09-18-2007, 10:54 AM

The Browns D blows plenty too. They allowed 34 to pit, and 45 to Cincy. That is not average at all.

onejayhawk · 05-23-2010, 01:59 AM

Since this was posted, the AFC West has been arguable the worst division in the NFL. Is it any longer? If not, who have they clearly passed?

J

adschofield · 05-23-2010, 02:39 PM

AFC West>NFC West

We've never been the worst division. We've been pretty bad, but the NFC West is always worse.

onejayhawk · 05-26-2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

AFC West>NFC West

We've never been the worst division. We've been pretty bad, but the NFC West is always worse.

You can make that argument. That being said, when the Cards went to the Super Bowl, while the Chiefs and Raiders hit bottom, I think you lose.
'Zona > SD
Seattle = Denver
SF > KC
Oakland > St Louis
Even if you give Denver over Seattle, it is still a toss up.

J

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 05-26-2010, 06:48 PM

Wow. San Diego is clearly better than Zona, Denver is clearly better than Seattle and Oakland is clearly better than St Louis. San Francisco is clearly better than KC. So that's 3/4 of those right there.

The NFC West has one of the worst teams ever. The Rams have picked in the top 2 for three straight years in a ****** division. That alone is enough to make them clearly the worst in the NFL.

onejayhawk · 05-27-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)

Wow. San Diego is clearly better than Zona, Denver is clearly better than Seattle and Oakland is clearly better than St Louis. San Francisco is clearly better than KC. So that's 3/4 of those right there.

The NFC West has one of the worst teams ever. The Rams have picked in the top 2 for three straight years in a ****** division. That alone is enough to make them clearly the worst in the NFL.

Now maybe, but we are talking 2008. Cardinals in the Super Bowl, Chiefs and Raiders 4th and 5th picks. Yes, the Rams were the worst, but not by a lot.

J

njx9 · 05-27-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)

Denver is clearly better than Seattle

now, or then? i'm not convinced either is true.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 05-27-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

now, or then? i'm not convinced either is true.

Now. My bad, I didn't see we were discussing 2008. I need to read more. I was also confused as to why Seattle was ahead of SF, because SF is probably better than us and Seattle is a hair better than KC probably.

njx9 · 05-27-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)

Now. My bad, I didn't see we were discussing 2008. I need to read more. I was also confused as to why Seattle was ahead of SF, because SF is probably better than us and Seattle is a hair better than KC probably.

meh, might as well talk about now, since this has been necro'ed. i think seattle would beat us 3 out of 5 games. i doubt we could run against their front seven, and i doubt orton could throw against anyone if the run game isn't going.

i'd bet SF and zona would beat us, and given the way we play down to crappy teams, st louis might even make it a game.

onejayhawk · 06-13-2010, 03:45 PM

So what about this season. Is the AFC West the Best?

Some points.

Denver made a partial breakthrough last season, in spite of a lot of off field prob=1lems.
Oakland had a very productive off season.
Kansas City may have had the best off season in the NFL.
San Diego drafted a solid RB, putting a patch on their only major hole.
All the young players are a year older, and a season more experienced.

J

Timbathia · 09-20-2010, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

meh, might as well talk about now, since this has been necro'ed. i think seattle would beat us 3 out of 5 games. i doubt we could run against their front seven, and i doubt orton could throw against anyone if the run game isn't going.

i'd bet SF and zona would beat us, and given the way we play down to crappy teams, st louis might even make it a game.

Apparently we no longer require a run game to move the ball (an effective one anyway).