Worst NFL Division NFC North or AFC East

[underpants]

The "Norse" vs. the Field Goal League
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/standings


NFC NORTH
Chicago 6-3 (Orton is GOD!)
Detroit 4-5
Minnesota 4-5
Green Bay 2-7


AFC EAST
New England 5-4 (Wax on Wax Off)
Buffalo 4-5
Miami 3-6
NY Jets 2-7

[kick-ass-bob]

1. DUPE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=345x507

:P

[underpants]

2. Show me..

pipe down

HooooWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAA!

[kick-ass-bob]

3. I say AFC East.

No way that the Jets are better than the Packers, and New England is too banged up to be counted as all that good.

[WilliamPitt]

4. NFC North

but only by an eyelash. I think most of the AFC East teams could beat most of those NFC North teams in a head-to-head matchup.

[kick-ass-bob]

5. right now or fully healthy?

I say fully healthy, GB beats everyone except maybe NE (if they are fully healthy).

Right now:
Chi v NE - toss up.
Det v Buffalo - Buffalo
Min v Mia - Minnesota
NYJ v GB - Green Bay

[underpants]

6. Who is QBing for Buffalo now?

Bob MacAdoo?

Mmmm I don't know. Miami is really weak, the J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS are non existent

The Vikes AND the Pack actually won this week. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

29. Whoever the QB is, he laid a licking on KC last weekend

They scored 3 against the Bills.

3.

[July]

39. Let me just say: GO BILLS.

That is all.

[RevCheesehead]

7. The Packers will rally and win the division!!

[underpants]

9. Oh my GOd what are you people going to do without Favre?

It should be interesting to watch.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. That picture is awesome!!

[RevCheesehead]

14. Yes, it is.

It's actually a stained-glass window. I believe it's part of the UW alumni club of California. :)

[Err]

32. Packers fans are so delusional.

:P :) :hi:

It's obvious that GB is not going anywhere this year.

[RevCheesehead]

38. In this division, it's still up for grabs.

And I stand by my prediction. O8)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. NFC North, and I don't even think it's close.

Chicago and Detroit aren't really all that good - they've simply taken advantage of being in that division and not having a ton of injuries. The Vikings defy explanation and the Packers have nothing left after injuries. Most importantly, this division has played a lot of intra-divisional games so far. This naturally adds to the wins, as SOMEONE has to pull out a W.

On the other hand, the AFC East schedule has really just begun. New England is at 5-4 with pretty much no secondary after having played what is by far the toughest schedule in the NFL. Buffalo's defense has failed them after Takeo Spikes went down with injury, and they've had to deal with Losman's growing pains. The Jets have no quarterback, but that's no excuse for having a running back aging in dog years all of a sudden. Miami is up-and-coming, though they're still a few years away.

If everyone's healthy, the AFC East is possibly the TOUGHEST division in football. Even still, they're not all that bad. The NFC North IS that bad.

[kick-ass-bob]

10. Oh my heavens, no.

NE is barely scraping by, Buffalo is schizo, and Miami is not very good at all (aka: up-and-coming) :P
I'm not even mentioning New Jersey.

Toughest division? NFC East or NFC South.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Um!

The Bears are healthy? They lost their starting QB in the preseason. The #1 RB is banged up and missed a game. The #2 is now out for at least 6 weeks. They lost one offensive lineman for the season, and another for 4 games. A QB, two RB's and 2 starters on the O-Line doesn't sound like a team with no major injuries.

I'm a Bears fan yes. Yes, the offense is pretty stilted. But the D is good, and i do think they could beat anyone in the AFC East except NE, who would simply find a way to beat an inferior overall team.

I guess we'll see. As they say, that's why they play the games.
The Professor

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Their unproven starting QB got injured, yes

Losing your running back for one game isn't that big a deal, especially when he really hasn't asserted himself as irreplaceable yet at all. Yeah, those are injuries, but not even close to being as bad as what the Patriots or Packers have had to deal with this year.

Their D is good though, so they'd give anyone a good run, but I don't think they'd have any sure wins against most of the league.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Still 6 Wins in 9 Games, Is 6 Wins In 9 Games. No?

And, why isn't Grossman still considered a loss, since he was the starter leaving camp? With the exception of Ryan Leaf or Cade McNown, isn't every guy good enough to start pretty darned important to their team? And, T. Jones was the leading rusher for the team last year. He led his prior team in rushing. And he was 3rd in the league this year.

Seems your setting a pretty rigid standard for which injuries are important and which ones aren't.
The Professor

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Grossman hadn't accomplished ANYTHING yet.

And no, not all starting QBs are created equally by ANY means. There's not much evidence to suggest that Grossman would have performed all THAT much better than Orton has. Hell, I could probably list off nearly a dozen teams who's starters are pretty much interchangeable with their backups. In fact, I will: Buffalo, Miami, Baltimore, Cleveland, San Diego (but only because both Rivers and Brees are good), Chicago, Detroit, Tampa, Arizona, and San Francisco. And Thomas Jones was so good that the Bears felt compelled to use their #1 draft pick on another RB when the team had a LOT of other pressing needs. That should tell you all you need to know about how valuable he is to the team.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Hey, That Tells Me Nothing

I don't think much of Angelo! So, his drafting a RB when Jones was there wasn't something i understood. Especially one without breakaway speed!

Jones was the best player on the offense last year, and he's been the best player on the offense this year. That is, by definition, valuable.

Not picking a fight here. Just having fun.


The Professor

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Maybe, but I don't see Jones being all that much better than Benson

Their YPC aren't all that far off either. Which is all to say simply that you haven't lost all that much with your injuries, as opposed to say, the Patriots, who've lost pretty much their entire secondary (including their defensive MVP Harrison), their Pro-Bowl RB (Dillon), Pro-Bowl LT (Light), Pro-Bowl LB (Bruschi), and their Pro-Bowl DT (Seymour). That's not even factoring in injuries or injury-related retirements of key players like Givens, Ted Johnson, Marquise Hill, and Daniel Graham. You could win a Super Bowl with just the guys on the Pats' injury report!

[ProfessorGAC]

26. The Pats Yes!

I think you're overestimating the injury deal in Green Bay though. Even with their starting receivers, that wouldn't be a very good team. The O-Line can't block anybody, and the D-Line can't put any pressure on the passer. They would be, at best, 8 & 8, if they had zero injuries. I don't think the injuries on that team have hurt them quite as much as you do.

Like i said. No fighting! Just having fun talking football. ("Now you go play foozball with your friends!")
The Professor

[kick-ass-bob]

27. They lost their top 3 receivers and their top 2 RBs. They lost O-linemen

and I think some defense (but I have lost track) for at least half the season (many, the whole season).

They are the 2004 Panthers of 2005.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. No fighting at all.

Well, I do think they'd still be bad, but I think they'd still have been good enough to score a winning record within the division. They'd be better than the Bears and Lions, and since I have no idea what's really happened to the Vikings, I'll go ahead and include them in that list too.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Hey, Them's Fightin' Words

The Vikings would NOT be better than the Bears. The defense is horrible, they have no running game, and the receivers drop the ball too much. (Fast yes! Good hands, no!) The Lions looked to be in deep trouble to me at the end of last year. No QB. No D-Line. Slow secondary. Not good!
The Professor

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. I didn't say the Vikes would, I said the Packers would.

Maybe we got on the wrong page somewhere.

The Vikes aren't injured, just too busy focusing on the porn cruises.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Sorry, I Misunderstood

I guess those weren't fightin' words. Never mind! And, you obviously don't understand that telling a Bears fan that the Packers are better are fightin' words. (Of course, there was no doubt about that in the 90's. I'm not blind!) But, still. . .
The Professor

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Packers are better than the Bears.

:evilgrin:

[ProfessorGAC]

37. I'll Get You

Somehow, some way! You just wait! Sometime between now and 2235, i'll get you.
The Professor

[underpants]

16. NE has played a marquee schedule-the remainder is

Heavily in the AFC East

http://www.patriots.com/games/index.cfm?ac=schedule

Oh and here is Ashleigh vanGerven Patriot cheerleader

&c=1&w=525&cs=1

[kick-ass-bob]

18. .

:thumbsup:

[chknltl]

19. DUUUUDE!!!11.!!.. that cheerleader link! bookmarked

[chknltl]

15. Impossible to call that one

IMO, Mr. Pitt called one better than the other by an eyelash. I put my glasses on and still couldn't see that eyelash. I would even go so far as to suggest that the bookies would give this a 50-50 split.
Off topic but I can't resist:
For the first time in history my beloved Seahawks are looking like a really good team. Barring injuries and considering their schedule they are a shoe in for the playoffs and then maybe: Seahawks vs Colts or Broncos in the Superbowl.... :D

[kick-ass-bob]

17. NFC Title Game:

Panthers v Seahawks

mark this page.

:P

[chknltl]

23. I think the Hawks take that one by 7

If the Hawks get that far in the playoffs. I can't believe I am actually about to say this but IMHO the ONLY team better than the Seahawks right now are the Colts. With that said, in an earlier poll about best QBs ever I picked Peyton Manning! Oh yeah and Rams fans: neener neener....catch a wild-card slot and maybe we can even up for last year, (we'll bring our brooms).

[kick-ass-bob]

25. If Delhomme can stop throwing bad passes

like he started doing this year, I don't think they can be stopped. The defense is too good and can take over a game, and if the offense doesn't turn it over, you can't beat them.

But that hasn't been the case so far this year for some strange reason.

[chknltl]

36. I have not followed Carolina this year...

...I think I recall Madden saying nice stuff about them and thats about it. I was not under the impression that they are as good as they once were but I've absolutely nothing to back that up with. The Seahawks may be peaking early and then again they might not be peaking yet. One thing is certain, they have NEVER EVER played this well before. We hawk fans are positively giddy. Their remaining schedule includes a lot of "practice" games. (Sorry 49er fans no disrespect meant but um....and twice at that with another Cardinals game in between) If the Seahawks were playing at the level which we are used to over these many years then the NFC West would rank lower than the other 2 in this thread. I hope you are right, I would love to see the Panthers/Seahawks matchup in the NFC Championship.

[StuckinBFE]

42. FINALLY SEAHAWKS FANS CAN UNITE OVER SOMETHING GOOD

GO SEAHAWKS!

All we need to do now is sign Shaun to a long term deal!!!

[Err]

34. AFC East...

their records are worse.

The records ultimately count come playoff time.

[Faygo Kid]

40. Detroit Lions. One playoff win in 48 years. That's enough alone. . .

. . .to make the NFC North the division that is the worst.

[friesianrider]

41. Ew God, AFC East no question...

That division is a friggin' joke.