Current NFC Landscape brings back memories of 80's/90's dominance

[FilthyBeast]

For fans old enough to remember, the NFC had a very dominant stretch in the 80's/90's where the conference winner won 13 straight SB games from 1982 - 1997 including our very own Bills sadly being on the receiving end of four of those games in the early 90's.

 

And if you look at the current NFC playoff picture right now there are 5 teams with no more than one loss compared to the AFC where every top tier has 2 losses minimum including the Bills.

 

Yes it's early, but you really have to wonder if the NFC Championship game is essentially going to be the SB this year meaning the winner will cruise to a championship regardless of the AFC opponent who makes it there. I still think it's Brady/Bucs vs the field when the dust settles but there are some very strong teams top to bottom with AZ/LAR/DAL/GB that I'm honestly not sure the bills could beat right now.

[uninja]

I see AZ and TB as two teams I would prefer not to play in the Superb Owl. TB because I have Brady PTSD and AZ because I swear that team has a horseshoe stuck in its ass with how lucky they keep getting every game.

 

Other teams (GB/LAR/DAL) I see as possible contenders, but have some flaws that would make them less anxiety inducing.

[RevWarRifleman]

Good observation. And ohhhhh how I remember those years. But at this point I say, we have plenty of football left this season to

see how things shake out. Lots of stuff can happen, emerg and change. I say, by December, the NFL "picture" will more complete.

[Matt_In_NH]

The one loss vs multiple loss thing is an anomaly......let the season play out more.   Last week the Bills were the sweathearts for power rankings.  What has really changed?  Last year the Steelers were like 11-0, where they the best team?  Its a LONG season.

[May Day 10]

I dont think so.  I dont think we will ever see that again.  

 

I mean, one conference may be better than another conference for a year, or a few years, but itll tip back and forth.  Kansas City has been the best team in football the past 3 seasons (and only got the 1 SB title).  

 

I don't believe the NFL is a cut above the AFC at this point.  

 

 

[msw2112]

I agree that AZ has had a lot of luck this year.  Those kinds of teams tend to fade in the playoffs, when their luck runs out.  Anyone remember the year Dick Jauron was the NFL coach of the year with Chicago?  That team had every lucky bounce known to man all season long, but went nowhere in the playoffs and they never came anywhere close to the same level of success and Jauron was fired.  I won't get into what he did next, as it's too painful for all of us.

 

I think the top AFC teams can compete just fine with the top NFC teams, the Bills included.  I think the Rams and Tampa are the two biggest challenges in the NFC and would be tough to beat in the Super Bowl, but them winning the game is not a foregone conclusion by any means.  The current NFC winning streak in the Super Bowl stands at 1.

[Aussie Joe]

Lets revisit at the end of the season...

 

The AFC winner can still win the SB without a reason to stretch the imagination very much...

 

Also , teams start out hot every year and cant sustain it.. Steelers last year most recent example went 11-0 or similar..

 

 

[RoyBatty is alive]

No.

 

NFL is now too dynamic.

 

Look at the Chiefs and the great Mahomes and the brilliant Andy Reid, they were going to win multiple SBs and now they likely wont make the playoffs.

 

This year/era like the recent ones, teams will come and go in prominence quickly.

[FilthyBeast]

19 minutes ago, uninja said:

I see AZ and TB as two teams I would prefer not to play in the Superb Owl. TB because I have Brady PTSD and AZ because I swear that team has a horseshoe stuck in its ass with how lucky they keep getting every game.

 

Other teams (GB/LAR/DAL) I see as possible contenders, but have some flaws that would make them less anxiety inducing.

 

TB/Brady is the only matchup I'd have zero confidence in having a chance to win in the SB, which is why beating them later this year would be a red herring similar to what happened with the Chiefs last year in the regular season against them.

 

AZ strikes me a a very complete team across the board and it's not just that Murray seems to have taken a quantum leap in year 3 similar to JA17, their defense is very physical and full of game changing players which doesn't bode well for this team and their struggles against defenses like the Titans/Steelers which aren't nearly as good as AZ's right now.

 

As for the rest, I believe we may be able to beat GB/DAL/LAR as you mentioned but it wouldn't be easy and all three of them also play with physicality in the trenches which again is a bad matchup for the Bills the way their lines are currently built.

[Ya Digg?]

So honest question, if the Bills had won last week and were 5-1, would you still be feeling this way?  All of those teams have some close wins over teams they should've beat easily and they all have some easy wins.  I'm finding very hard when I look at those teams to find one of them that have both an offense and a defense that can keep up with the Bills offense and defense.  Not saying these teams can't beat the Bills, but I don't look at any of them and think the Bills can't beat them

[FilthyBeast]

19 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

I dont think so.  I dont think we will ever see that again.  

 

I mean, one conference may be better than another conference for a year, or a few years, but itll tip back and forth.  Kansas City has been the best team in football the past 3 seasons (and only got the 1 SB title).  

 

I don't believe the NFL is a cut above the AFC at this point.  

 

 

 

I wasn't implying the NFC may go on a tear and win 10 straight SB's per se, they just seem to be the dominant conference at present with the aforementioned teams who all have franchise QB's playing at an elite level combined with physical play in the trenches that I don't believe the Bills or some of the other alleged AFC contenders would match up well against.

 

That's why in hindsight it wasn't necessarily shocking to see such a one sided blowout by the Bucs against the Chiefs in the SB last year, it brought back memories of all the Bills and Broncos teams that were great in the regular season in the 80's/90's but got smashed in the SB because of bad matchups, most notably in the trenches.

[May Day 10]

Have we had any big match ups yet?  

 

Cardinals thrashing the Browns? also the Titans in the opener?

 

Packers beating Bengals in OT?

 

Patriots taking the Buccaneers and Cowboys to the wire but losing.

 

anything else come to mind?  I think the Rams beat the Colts.  

 

I guess its an intrigue to keep an eye on.  Green Bay plays @ KC and the Titans and Rams play in a few weeks.

[Big Turk]

Bills can beat anyone in the league.

[SoCal Deek]

I realize it's the bye week, but I just don't see any comparison. The 80's-90's NFC domination wasn't defined by the conference having the better overall record. It was better known for the physical play of the NFC being too much for the flashier, quicker, AFC teams.  If anything, that decade would be more akin to the SEC's recent domination in College Football.

[billsfan89]

The NFC is more top heavy and the AFC more middle heavy. 12 out of 16 teams in the AFC have 3 wins or more with 7 teams above .500 and one team at .500. The NFC has 10 teams with 3 wins or more with only 5 teams above .500 and 2 teams at .500. The NFC has basically 5 elite teams standing out above the rest then a small middle class of teams and then a really bad bottom end. 

 

The AFC only has really 4 outright bad and irrelevant teams. The rest are pretty competitive even if the conference is a bit less top heavy. In the end I think both conferences are about even. Last year the AFC was wayyyyyy stronger than the NFC so it isn't like things don't shift so sudden in the NFL. Long term I think the AFC is much more loaded at the young QB position which will foster more competitive dominance for the AFC.

 

Josh, Watson (if he ever plays), Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, and Herbert are 5 elite level young QB's in the conference and Joe Burrow is coming on strong in Cincy. The AFC also has Mayfield, Trevor Lawrence, Zach Wilson, and Mac Jones all with a level of potential not to mention Carr and Tanny who are solid QB's in their primes. Whereas in the NFC I don't see that same level of young QB's. Kyler Murray and Dak are fantastic but what else is there as far as younger QB's? Daniel Jones has been very mixed and not in a good organization, Darnold looked to be doing good but has faded and the jury is still out on Justin Fields and Trey Lance. 

 

The top NFC QB's are Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers both older QB's after that you have Wilson and Stafford in their early 30's and then Murray and Dak as the younger QB's. Whereas in the AFC you have 5-6 young QB's playing at an elite level and a lot more that could come up. 

[Greg S]

This Thursday's Packers vs Cards game is must see TV. 

[ProcessAccepted]

I'd be more worried about the longer term prospects of the NFC. I think that the young QBs in the AFC show more potential especially Burrow if he can stay healthy

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

It looks like the NFL has reached that parity it wanted with some divisions

 

 

[jethro_tull]

Lack of competition within divisions.  Bills are the best team in the game.  

They need tougher games to elevate their capability.  

[billybrew1]

1 hour ago, FilthyBeast said:

For fans old enough to remember, the NFC had a very dominant stretch in the 80's/90's where the conference winner won 13 straight SB games from 1982 - 1997 including our very own Bills sadly being on the receiving end of four of those games in the early 90's.

 

And if you look at the current NFC playoff picture right now there are 5 teams with no more than one loss compared to the AFC where every top tier has 2 losses minimum including the Bills.

 

Yes it's early, but you really have to wonder if the NFC Championship game is essentially going to be the SB this year meaning the winner will cruise to a championship regardless of the AFC opponent who makes it there. I still think it's Brady/Bucs vs the field when the dust settles but there are some very strong teams top to bottom with AZ/LAR/DAL/GB that I'm honestly not sure the bills could beat right now.

We really have to question why the Bills D only forced one turnover and one punt vs. Tennessee. I have to Billieve the Bills coaches and players did not bring their A game vs. Tennessee for whatever reason. The Tennessee game was the outlier, not the other five games. For whatever reason we were flat as hell.

While the offense didn't look, "Super" either vs. Tennessee, it did play well. It was the OL that played poorly vs. Tennessee but I Billieve the OL has the potential to play much better over time if we are lucky enough to avoid injuries.

So, I think the Bills can play vs. the big bad NFC, we just have to see how the very long NFL season goes for all the good teams.

Allen could get used to the new ways defenses are trying to beat us and become much better at defeating them. The OL can get much better (I talked about it in depth yesterday, the whole OL could play better by January, we have that potential.)  If both these things occur the Bills will be very difficult to kill for any team.

You have to wonder though.....why Bills coaches seemingly decided to not give Tennessee their all? We really looked lame letting Brown catch all those passes wide-open. As far as Derrick Henry goes, he broke open two runs on the day. Not good letting him do that but Bills fans have to happy to have Tremaine Edmunds after that game. He really was the only Bills that handled him repeatedly and he did a great job. Maybe that game exposed us for not enough quality depth at DT? Maybe not good enough ends vs. the run? Maybe we needed a practice run vs. a great running team? IDK? If someone asked me why we lost I'd say Brown killed us. We didn't get any pass rush nor did we cover him well. If we forced more punts Allen would have had more chances and we easily win.