How Bad Is the AFC West, Really?

[Joel]

I mean, OK, the Faders are living up to their name, the Bolts will probably dismantle their team starting with the GM and working down and the Chiefs started 0-4, just fired their coach and started Orton. And, of course, many people consider our 8 wins a literal act of God. Yet... the LAST place AFC West team is 6-8 and just gave the defending SB Champs their first loss in 364 days.

Every other Division cellar dweller would kill for records that good (Shannys 'Skins are closest, but needed an upset against the Giants yesterday to reach 5 wins.) 10 other teams have worse records (and an eleventh, Philly, has an equal record; the NFC East has a similar level of parity every year, and playing each other 6 times means they're always better than their records.) The rest of the Division has records as good as or better than 16 other teams (i.e. is by definition no worse than average.) The Bolts are third place in the West, but would be tied for second in three other Divisions (admittedly, one of those is the always awful NFC West and the other is the NFC East.)

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings

This years scheduling pit the AFC West against itself, the NFC North, AFC East and a team each from the AFC North and South. That's 3 of the 4 teams in the last Conference Championships, plus the Pats and Lions. In addition, we played Cincy, Chokeland played Houston, SD played Baltimore and KC played GB. The AFC West team won all but one of those games.

Compare that to:

NFC West vs. NFC East (Dallas and the Giants) and AFC North (Pitt, Baltimore and Cincy.)

NFC North vs. NFC South (NO and Atlanta) and AFC West (us.)

NFC South vs. NFC North (GB, Chicago and Detroit) and AFC South (Houston.)

NFC East vs. NFC West (SF) and AFC East (NE and the Jets)

AFC North vs. AFC South (Houston) and NFC West (SF.)

AFC South vs. AFC North (Baltimore, Pitt and Cincy) and NFC South (NO and Atlanta.)

The AFC South and NFC West actually had a fairly tough schedule (I might have to take SF seriously) but otherwise every Division had an easier time than the AFC West. You have to ask yourself if the NFC (and AFC) North is really that good, or simply benefits from the fact its only hard games are against itself.

Regardless, and however our own season ends, it seems like the AFC West may not be great, but isn't too bad either. Note that that's not really good news for Denver; we have to play six games against those teams next year, half of them on the road, and compete with all of them for the Division title.

[Northman]

Its actually pretty bad. Im not going to take too much from the SD or KC victories. It was a weird day all around yesterday. I think out of all the AFCW teams 3 of them are improving while SD is regressing. But if they dont make the playoffs i think SD will be getting a new HC as well. If KC stays with Crennel it may or may not help them but with some former NE staff already there it could be a positive for them. Denver, obviously are getting better but the more and more the season goes on the less i think QB is an issue and hope that we build and fix some of the other more glaring problems on the team. Oakland as usual has some talent but i just think they will always be cursed by Al Davis so that goes without saying.

[Joel]

Its actually pretty bad. Im not going to take too much from the SD or KC victories. It was a weird day all around yesterday. I think out of all the AFCW teams 3 of them are improving while SD is regressing. But if they dont make the playoffs i think SD will be getting a new HC as well. If KC stays with Crennel it may or may not help them but with some former NE staff already there it could be a positive for them. Denver, obviously are getting better but the more and more the season goes on the less i think QB is an issue and hope that we build and fix some of the other more glaring problems on the team. Oakland as usual has some talent but i just think they will always be cursed by Al Davis so that goes without saying.
I wouldn't take too much from SD and KCs two wins alone, no. The Packers were set to play Todd Haleys Chiefs with Palko under center but instead faced Romeo Crennels Chiefs with Orton; not much game tape available on that team. The Ravens simply continued their season long trend of underestimating vastly inferior teams; how a team that beat Houston, Cincy and Pitt (twice) loses to teams like Tennessee and SD I don't know.

I'm not saying the AFC West is a great Division, just not a bad one either; with a combined record of 28-28, we're beating SOMEBODY. Before they beat the Ravens, SD came within a TD of handing GB its first loss in week 8. The Texans lost to Oakland. The Jets lost to them AND us. The Bears are 1-3 against the Division (though admittedly we picked a GREAT time to play them.) Heck, the Chiefs even came within 4 points of beating Pitt. I do agree with most of your trend assessments though; the disagreement would seem to be over how MUCH improvement each team needs.

[Dreadnought]

I think the AFC West is exactly what its record says it is. .500. Middle of the pack. The strong divisions are AFC Central, NFC North. AFC South is a little crappy, and NFC East a little below par, and everyone else is about the same as the AFC West. We are what our records say we are in the end.

[Agent of Orange]

KC, the AFC West's last place team, have defeated Chicago, Green Bay, and lost to Pittsburgh by 4 points. This was during their last 4 games.

SD just thrashed the Ravens, who were 10-3.

Actually, the AFC West is very competitive. Injuries have made some teams inconsistent. And in Denver's case, they had to overcome the 1-4 hole that Orton left them.

[Cugel]

Regardless, and however our own season ends, it seems like the AFC West may not be great, but isn't too bad either.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. You don't measure by the worst team in the division but the BEST! There's not ONE strong team in this division. Every other division in football has at least 1 good team and many like the NFC and AFC North have 2 or 3. Then there's divisions like the NFC East which top to bottom has teams that could get hot and go on a tear in the playoffs.

The worst team in the AFC West has a better record than other divisions because they play the other crappy teams in this division!

As for the Chiefs win over the Packers it's utterly meaningless. Remember the 1999 Giants beating the 13-0 Broncos? The Giants still sucked that year and the Broncos crushed their playoff opponents and won the SB by a wide margin.

In short that Giants victory proved absolutely NOTHING about either the Giants or the Broncos. The Chiefs beat a Packers team that finally got bored enough playing stiffs that they failed to get up for the game and lost. Big deal.

Winning this division is like being the top dog-turd on the pile. You might be on top, but it's still a pile of turds. This has happened before in recent years. Remember the Chiefs last year? They managed to win the division at 10-6 but everybody knew they really were FRAUDS who only got into the playoffs due to being in a crappy division.

And of course they were crushed by the Ravens 30-7 in their home playoff game. A fate that probably awaits the Broncos this year. :ranger:

[Dreadnought]

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. You don't measure by the worst team in the division but the BEST! There's not ONE strong team in this division. Every other division in football has at least 1 good team and many like the NFC and AFC North have 2 or 3. Then there's divisions like the NFC East which top to bottom has teams that could get hot and go on a tear in the playoffs.

Thats just silly. The 1972 Dolphins played one of the weakest schedules in NFL History, in large part because three other teams in that division were basically non-competitive stiffs, while the second place Jets were 7-7. Makes it easier to get to 14-0 when you get a bunch of near automatic wins out of the gate. The 1972 AFC East should not be judged a "Strong" division at all just because the winner was amongst the greatest teams in history; it was a bunch of weakilings with one superb team in it, and the overall record of 33-36-1 reflects that accurately.

You measure a division's strength by its aggregate record. Everything else is eyewash.

[BORDERLINE]

You know the NFL is an up and down league. One year a division is strong the next they are horrible. The AFC west has been consistently average but any given year the West can have solid SB candidate. You can't put a finger on it and that's what makes the NFL so good.

I see a lot of the English Premiere (soccer) and that league only has like 4 teams that can actually win the rest play catch up all year. And when you look at La Liga (Spain's soccer) they only have 2.

So I like the fact that every division, every team can dominate any given year.

[Joel]

I think the AFC West is exactly what its record says it is. .500. Middle of the pack. The strong divisions are AFC Central, NFC North. AFC South is a little crappy, and NFC East a little below par, and everyone else is about the same as the AFC West. We are what our records say we are in the end.
Yeah, I buy that on the AFC West; there are no really great teams, but even the Chiefs aren't pushovers. There's no one like the Packers or Texans, but also no one like the Vikings or Colts.

I'm still not sure how strong the NFC and AFC North are though (AFC Central? Can Moon lead my Oilers to yet another one and done playoff appearance, and will the Bills stay out of the way this time? :tongue:) They've got more good teams than most, but the non-Division schedule for both is pretty weak; again, the only really good team for the NFC North is NO, and the AFC North only has slightly more competition with Houston and SF. I also think the NFC East is stronger than its record looks (after all, the "bad" team is only 5-9, much like in the AFC West) but I always think that; any place but the NFC East playing the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles and/or Redskins twice would be considered a tough schedule most years, but for them it's normal every year.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. You don't measure by the worst team in the division but the BEST! There's not ONE strong team in this division. Every other division in football has at least 1 good team and many like the NFC and AFC North have 2 or 3. Then there's divisions like the NFC East which top to bottom has teams that could get hot and go on a tear in the playoffs.

The worst team in the AFC West has a better record than other divisions because they play the other crappy teams in this division!

As for the Chiefs win over the Packers it's utterly meaningless. Remember the 1999 Giants beating the 13-0 Broncos? The Giants still sucked that year and the Broncos crushed their playoff opponents and won the SB by a wide margin.

In short that Giants victory proved absolutely NOTHING about either the Giants or the Broncos. The Chiefs beat a Packers team that finally got bored enough playing stiffs that they failed to get up for the game and lost. Big deal.

Winning this division is like being the top dog-turd on the pile. You might be on top, but it's still a pile of turds. This has happened before in recent years. Remember the Chiefs last year? They managed to win the division at 10-6 but everybody knew they really were FRAUDS who only got into the playoffs due to being in a crappy division.

And of course they were crushed by the Ravens 30-7 in their home playoff game. A fate that probably awaits the Broncos this year. :ranger:
As Dreadnought notes, you measure the Division by the Division, not by the strongest team in it. That's why I don't take the '9ers teams from the '80s as seriously: Yes, they still had to win Super Bowls, and win playoff games to get there, but they were virtually GUARANTEED an annual playoff berth because they had one less team in their Division than everyone but the AFC Central, and ALL of them ALWAYS sucked except, occasionally, the Rams. The sad thing is, that has largely remained true ever since, hence last years NFC West "Champion" was 7-9.

Much of the same applies to the '80s Bears, which really puts both teams in perspective: Chicago won their Division 6/7 years, but anyone who remembers what the Vikings, Lions and Packers were like in the '80s knows that wasn't a huge accomplishment. In the playoffs they were one and done twice, twice more won a game then lost the NFC Championship to SF, and only once won the Super Bowl (though that teams 15-1 record indicates they were the Leagues best team.) Meanwhile, the Cowboys, Giants and 'Skins slugged it out for the chance to stop them, and succeeded 50% of the time. Did Montanas '9ers or Ditkas Bears make their Divisions great? Based on how often the NFC East sent three teams to the playoffs, I would say, "no."

Stuff like this is why people serious about comparing teams use power rankings, and people like me can't take college football seriously as long as the SEC declares itself "the best" while making that an excuse for avoiding non-Conference opponents (even in National Championships.) It's also why the NFL uses common opponents, Conference opponents, strength of victory and strength of schedule to break ties. Obviously overall record comes first, and Division record comes after it within the Division, but when all else is equal, Houston beating up on the 1-13 Colts isn't quite as impressive as the Ravens beating up on the 4-10 Browns.

The AFC West is not a .500 Division simply because we all play each other; Denver's the only one of the lot that's >.500 against the Division, which means:

Denver is 5-4 outside the Division, including wins against Cincy, the Jets and Chicago.

Oakland is 5-5 outside the Division, including wins against Houston, the Jets and Chicago.

San Diego is 5-4 outside the Division, though the only good team they've beaten is Baltimore.

KC is 4-6 outside the Division, including wins against GB and Chicago.

For a crappy Division, the AFC West has racked up a lot of wins against "good" teams from the "good" NFC North, AFC North and AFC East Divisions.

[BroncoTech]

I think the AFC west is pretty bad but as a whole I think the quality of the teams in the NFL as a whole is slowly eroding. There's no stat for this but I don't get the feeling from today's ballers like I got 20 years ago. I think if you trace things back around the time Mike Tyson's thuggery entered boxing the level of thuggery in the NFL started to raise as well. Face it today's athlete just ain't got no soul. And big money in sports is the devil. It's ruining sports the same way big money has ruined our political system.

Take the campaign donations out of politics, take the big money and the thuggery out of sports and we might have something. If we don't do something about this I can see the day when the NFL becomes unwatchable.

[camdisco24]

I think the AFC West is upward trending when everyone else is downward trending. All of the AFCW has played some really good football the past few weeks. Even in some losses, we don't look like that weak of a division. I see where you're coming from Joel, it's a valid point.

Next season will be interesting, especially if Norv is out in SD, KC hires a real coach, and Den/Oak continue to be strong. Might be a pretty tough division actually.

[Joel]

I think the AFC west is pretty bad but as a whole I think the quality of the teams in the NFL as a whole is slowly eroding. There's no stat for this but I don't get the feeling from today's ballers like I got 20 years ago. I think if you trace things back around the time Mike Tyson's thuggery entered boxing the level of thuggery in the NFL started to raise as well. Face it today's athlete just ain't got no soul. And big money in sports is the devil. It's ruining sports the same way big money has ruined our political system.

Take the campaign donations out of politics, take the big money and the thuggery out of sports and we might have something. If we don't do something about this I can see the day when the NFL becomes unwatchable.
No discipline in this League anymore, just prima donnas and/or gold diggers who can do what they wish as long as they win on the field (sometimes even if they don't as long as they have unused ABILITY to do so.) The Commissioner(s,) owners, GMs and coaches all talk about discipline and enforcing penalties for unacceptable behavior, but where's the substance? The rap is crime doesn't pay in the NFL, but the truth is Pro Bowlers can literally get away with murder.

Wholly apart from what does to the character of the game, condoning limitless irresponsibility on and off the field translates into erratic inconsistent teams that can dominate excellent teams one week and be destroyed by pitiful ones the next. Perhaps that explains why the team with the Pro Bowl killer has beaten all but one of the AFCs best teams but loses to people like Tennessee and SD. It certainly explains why the Cowboys keep showing up with rosters filled full of talent but can't manage to win a playoff game even on the rare occasions they get the chance. It also explains why well undertalented by well disciplined teams can do surprisingly well just by consistently playing hard working dedicated football every week (I would normally point to Foxs Broncos here, but after three turnovers to end the first half cost us Sundays game that's no longer an option.) If you can be one of the few disciplined teams you can make the playoffs even if you suck, because the greedy hotdogs you play each week will blow about half their games.

I think the AFC West is upward trending when everyone else is downward trending. All of the AFCW has played some really good football the past few weeks. Even in some losses, we don't look like that weak of a division. I see where you're coming from Joel, it's a valid point.

Next season will be interesting, especially if Norv is out in SD, KC hires a real coach, and Den/Oak continue to be strong. Might be a pretty tough division actually.
That's also a good point; I thought about it a couple weeks ago with respect to Denver, but it now seems to apply to the whole Division: The NFL is all about peaking at the right time, which the AFC West as a group seems to be doing. That IS better news for Denver than any of the other teams; KC and SD probably waited too long for their resurgence, and the Faders are the exception to the rule. As noted above, the teams that can maintain a consistent level of focus and effort can hang with anyone, and beat most people now that free agency, huge salaries and laughable conduct policies have made the NFL a hotdoggers club.

[jhildebrand]

I think the AFC West is exactly what its record says it is. .500. Middle of the pack. The strong divisions are AFC Central, NFC North. AFC South is a little crappy, and NFC East a little below par, and everyone else is about the same as the AFC West. We are what our records say we are in the end.

AFC Central? You mean North? Maybe East? :confused: The east and north are strong. Your post confused me so bad, hey it's late, that I had to go back and double check there is no central :lol:

[BroncoTech]

Odd how the 'niners under Singletary were so undisciplined while Mike was such a disciplinarian. Under a laid back coach they are playing better ball. Pretty much the same squad. Maybe Mike had Mcd people skills.

[nflfan]

Before the Cutler injury, I had the Bears, Packers, and Lions sweeping the AFC West.

To their credit, the AFC West is on the rise. Broncos have been solid under Tebow, the Raiders are more explossive with Palmer, the Chargers are again looking strong late in the season ... maybe too late, and the Chiefs .... not really sure what to make of them. They've replaced one game manager with another; that offseason should be interesting.

[Chef Zambini]

AFC west?
no worse than the NFC west or NFC east.

winning in the nfl is haRD.
yOU SHOW UP UNPREPARED, YOU WILL GET BEAT
half hearted equals a loss.
sloppy turnovers....loss.
there really are no gimme games in the NFL.
No teaM OR DIVISION can be taken lightly

[Chef Zambini]

afc central, that sounds like something I would post.

[hotcarl]

We are in first with something like a -51 point differential (look it up) so, op I guess the answer is pretty bad

[Chef Zambini]

Odd how the 'niners under Singletary were so undisciplined while Mike was such a disciplinarian. Under a laid back coach they are playing better ball. Pretty much the same squad. Maybe Mike had Mcd people skills.I guess you never dated a catholic girl?

[Joel]

We are in first with something like a -51 point differential (look it up) so, op I guess the answer is pretty bad
I did notice that; in fact, only one AFCW team (SD) has positive net points. In Denvers case, however, it should be remembered that 135 of the 343 points we've allowed were against GB, Detroit and NE. The moral is any team that can pass the ball can destroy our porous secondary, which we'll have to change to be a consistent contender. In our other 11 games we averaged 18.5 pts each, which isn't bad at all; just need to stop elite offenses like GB and NE passing at will.

With the other two teams it boils down to: Oakland has no defence and KC has no offense.

[Chef Zambini]

I did notice that; in fact, only one AFCW team (SD) has positive net points. In Denvers case, however, it should be remembered that 135 of the 343 points we've allowed were against GB, Detroit and NE. The moral is any team that can pass the ball can destroy our porous secondary, which we'll have to change to be a consistent contender. In our other 11 games we averaged 18.5 pts each, which isn't bad at all; just need to stop elite offenses like GB and NE passing at will.

With the other two teams it boils down to: Oakland has no defence and KC has no offense.KC can run the ball and ORTON with time and space will careve up our depleted, inexperienced and under-talented secondary!
ORTON will target goodman like a drunk co-ed, drinking from a half empty jack daniels bottle with an exposed bikini thong,and a back tatoo that says" do me"!

[vandammage13]

KC can run the ball and ORTON with time and space will careve up our depleted, inexperienced and under-talented secondary!
ORTON will target goodman like a drunk co-ed, drinking from a half empty jack daniels bottle with an exposed bikini thong,and a back tatoo that says" do me"!

No one knows KO's weaknesses better than the Broncos.

I'm betting Orton will be getting a heavy dose of VonDoom in that game.

Orton will be exposed...yet again.

[artie_dale]

I still think our division is pretty bad, at most average.

Playoff teams Denver beat = 0
Playoff teams KC beat = 1 (new coach, new QB helped beat GB)
Playoff teams Oakland beat = 1 (Houston, day after Al Davis passed)
Playoff teams San Diego beat = 1 (Balt is just as wishy washy as they are and when they beat us, we weren't contenders yet)

Based on that, our division isn't too impressive. KC just outright took it to GB. I've noticed that GB has been declining for some reason. Baltimore is either really good, or really bad (just like SD). But, to compare to the other divisions, NFC West early on was expected to be the worst, but AZ & Seattle stepped it up. NFC East was expected to be THE toughest, but Phili flopped bad early on, Dallas & NYG have same syndromes as SD & Baltimore. AFC South isn't the same since Peyton isn't playing so that opened the door for Houston. Looking at all of that, I think the only way to gauge each division is by whether they are "Strong" or "Weak". We aren't a Strong division.

[vandammage13]

I still think our division is pretty bad, at most average.

Playoff teams Denver beat = 0
Playoff teams KC beat = 1 (new coach, new QB helped beat GB)
Playoff teams Oakland beat = 1 (Houston, day after Al Davis passed)
Playoff teams San Diego beat = 1 (Balt is just as wishy washy as they are and when they beat us, we weren't contenders yet)

Based on that, our division isn't too impressive. KC just outright took it to GB. I've noticed that GB has been declining for some reason. Baltimore is either really good, or really bad (just like SD). But, to compare to the other divisions, NFC West early on was expected to be the worst, but AZ & Seattle stepped it up. NFC East was expected to be THE toughest, but Phili flopped bad early on, Dallas & NYG have same syndromes as SD & Baltimore. AFC South isn't the same since Peyton isn't playing so that opened the door for Houston. Looking at all of that, I think the only way to gauge each division is by whether they are "Strong" or "Weak". We aren't a Strong division.

If the playoffs started today, the Jets would be in, and we beat them.

So we have beaten 1 playoff team (for now, anyway).

And look on the bright side...If the Chargers, Raiders, or Chiefs win the division then that will be 2 playoff teams we have beat!!!

[artie_dale]

If the playoffs started today, the Jets would be in, and we beat them.

So we have beaten 1 playoff team (for now, anyway).

And look on the bright side...If the Chargers, Raiders, or Chiefs win the division then that will be 2 playoff teams we have beat!!!

But the playoffs don't start today and they are tied with Cinci (not sure who wins that tie breaker), but this point is a small one. The Jets haven't been any different than Baltimore & SD. And if you think that last Wild Card slot will come out of our division, I think your giving our division too much credit.

And that last sentence doesn't make any sense or point. The point to my post wasn't to point out how many playoff teams we beat or didn't beat, it was only pointing out how many playoff teams our division beat. NYJ isn't a playoff team today.

[vandammage13]

But the playoffs don't start today and they are tied with Cinci (not sure who wins that tie breaker), but this point is a small one. The Jets haven't been any different than Baltimore & SD. And if you think that last Wild Card slot will come out of our division, I think your giving our division too much credit.

I never said that...Only the division winner will get in.


And that last sentence doesn't make any sense or point. The point to my post wasn't to point out how many playoff teams we beat or didn't beat, it was only pointing out how many playoff teams our division beat. NYJ isn't a playoff team today.

Wrong...If the playoffs started today, the Jets would be in.

The last sentence of my previous post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Basically, it doesn't matter who you beat to get to the dance...just get to the dance. From there, anything can happen.

To get to your point, our division doesn't have any elite teams, but we aren't that bad, considering our worst team could still possibly finish 8-8.

[artie_dale]

I never said that...Only the division winner will get in.



Wrong...If the playoffs started today, the Jets would be in.

The last sentence of my previous post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Basically, it doesn't matter who you beat to get to the dance...just get to the dance. From there, anything can happen.

To get to your point, our division doesn't have any elite teams, but we aren't that bad, considering our worst team could still possibly finish 8-8.

Where did you miss the part where I said our division is "average" at best?

[vandammage13]

Where did you miss the part where I said our division is "average" at best?

Yes, each team is average-slightly above average....But as a whole, considering there is no bottom dwelling, top-10 pick bound team in the division, its right up there with the rest, IMO.

[artie_dale]

Yes, each team is average-slightly above average....But as a whole, considering there is no bottom dwelling, top-10 pick bound team in the division, its right up there with the rest, IMO.

So we're a "Strong Division"?

[vandammage13]

So we're a "Strong Division"?

From top to bottom? Yes.

I've got the AFC West right near the top only behind the AFC North, and perhaps the NFC North. (Again, focusing on teams 1-4, not just teams 1-2)

[artie_dale]

From top to bottom? Yes.

I've got the AFC West right near the top only behind the AFC North, and perhaps the NFC North. (Again, focusing on teams 1-4, not just teams 1-2)

That's giving them a lot more credit than I was originally willing to, but I can buy that logic.

[Ravage!!!]

I think we are a very weak division. KC beating Chicago since Cutlers injury, is something everyone is doing. Beating teh Packers means nothing. Packers win that game 9 out of ten times. You would have to say that KC is a better team than the Pack to give that victory any credence.

Now SD looked REALLY REALLY good against Baltimore. Lets hope that was their game of the year.

[vandammage13]

I think we are a very weak division. KC beating Chicago since Cutlers injury, is something everyone is doing. Beating teh Packers means nothing. Packers win that game 9 out of ten times. You would have to say that KC is a better team than the Pack to give that victory any credence.

Now SD looked REALLY REALLY good against Baltimore. Lets hope that was their game of the year.

SD can beat anyone when they are on their game, and I think KC (being our worst team record wise) beating GB says a lot about the fact that they are at least competitive (fluke or not).

Oakland is hit or miss, but is no pushover.

And of course, the Broncos have shown they have a good enough team to hang in there with anyone when they protect the football.

No world beaters in the division, but no cellar-dwellers this year either...

[Joel]

I still think our division is pretty bad, at most average.

Playoff teams Denver beat = 0
Playoff teams KC beat = 1 (new coach, new QB helped beat GB)
Playoff teams Oakland beat = 1 (Houston, day after Al Davis passed)
Playoff teams San Diego beat = 1 (Balt is just as wishy washy as they are and when they beat us, we weren't contenders yet)

Based on that, our division isn't too impressive. KC just outright took it to GB. I've noticed that GB has been declining for some reason. Baltimore is either really good, or really bad (just like SD). But, to compare to the other divisions, NFC West early on was expected to be the worst, but AZ & Seattle stepped it up. NFC East was expected to be THE toughest, but Phili flopped bad early on, Dallas & NYG have same syndromes as SD & Baltimore. AFC South isn't the same since Peyton isn't playing so that opened the door for Houston. Looking at all of that, I think the only way to gauge each division is by whether they are "Strong" or "Weak". We aren't a Strong division.
In terms of playoff teams, there are two approaches: Past and projected record. The latter is more current but less certain; the AFC West doesn't stack up badly either way though. Of last years playoff teams,

GB (SB Champs) is 3-1 against the AFCW,
Chicago (host of last years NFC Championship) is 1-3,
The Jets (losers of last years AFC Championship) is 2-2,
Pitt (winners of last years AFC Championship) is 1-0,
Baltimore is 0-1 and
Indy is 0-1.
Total: 7-8

It's more difficult to figure for this years playoff teams because we don't yet know them all. The certain ones are
GB (3-1 against the AFCW)
Houston (0-1)
NE (4-0)
Baltimore (0-1) and
Pitt (1-0)
Total: 8-3

That's not a great record for us, but those are all but two of the best NFL teams (NO and SF are absent.) I never said the AFCW is great, nor would I; however, its record versus bubble teams indicates it's not too bad either:
Detroit (3-0)
Chicago (1-3)
NY (2-2)
Cincy (0-1)
Tennessee (1-0)
Total: 7-6

So I wouldn't bet on ANY AFCW team against the NFLs best, but ALL are just about even money against any potential wildcard team except (maybe) Detroit.

I would also like to note, as an aside, that Denvers win against the Bungles (with Orton, no less) is kind of big, because their 6 losses suggest they're better than their record:

Denver 24-22
SF 13-8
Pitt 24-17
Balt 31-24
Pitt 35-7
Houston 20-19

All those teams but Denver have clinched, and a single score decided all but one of those games. Losing to Baltimore again probably costs Cincy a wildcard and promote the Jets--a team we and Oakland both beat.

That underscores my point: Its record indicates that, although the NFLs best teams can slaughter all the AFCW (and have,) all the AFCW can hold its own against anyone else. I therefore conclude the Division, both as a whole AND INDIVIDUALLY, is neither very good nor very bad. It's a uniformly average Division, hence, even though winning the Division is almost certain to require a winning record, every team is still in the hunt (though a Broncos win @Buffalo would eliminate half of them, and a Raiders loss @KC would eliminate them even if we lose.)

As far as comparing the other Divisions to each other, the same approach is necessary for accuracy; we can't say who fell flat or stepped up without looking at whom they played (and if we REALLY want accuracy we must look at THAT in terms of whom THEY played, hence power rankings, but I believe that's more Dreadnoughts area than mine. ;))

So we're a "Strong Division"?
If my only choices are "strong" or "weak" I'll say, "strong" just because anything can happen to a team with an opportunity, and I think every team in this Division has an opportunity against all but the best (witness the fact the two WORST teams in the Division beating what are widely considered the BEST teams in each Conference, in the same weekend, no less.) However, the difficulty of classifying a Division with total record of 28-28 argues we need more categories than simply "strong" or "weak." Neither really applies when the Division's .500 and every team in it is within a game of .500.

My objective with this thread was refuting the notion ANY AFC West winner will be one and done because it will only have "climbed to the top of the turd pile," as Cugel so eloquently put it. I think I've done that.

[Ravage!!!]

SD can beat anyone when they are on their game, and I think KC (being our worst team record wise) beating GB says a lot about the fact that they are at least competitive (fluke or not).

Oakland is hit or miss, but is no pushover.

And of course, the Broncos have shown they have a good enough team to hang in there with anyone when they protect the football.

No world beaters in the division, but no cellar-dwellers this year either...

Its the NFL. ANyone can beat ANYONE on any given sunday. The great 1984 Bears lost to a lowsy Dolphins team. The GREAT Broncos team lost to a mediocre giants team.

There are upsets EVERY week in the NFL...meaning weak or bad teams beat teams they shouldn't have. KC Beating Green Bay means NOTHING, because the NFL has parity throughout.

Maybe no dwellers, but the division as a whole, is weak.

[BroncoStud]

Its the NFL. ANyone can beat ANYONE on any given sunday. The great 1984 Bears lost to a lowsy Dolphins team. The GREAT Broncos team lost to a mediocre giants team.

There are upsets EVERY week in the NFL...meaning weak or bad teams beat teams they shouldn't have. KC Beating Green Bay means NOTHING, because the NFL has parity throughout.

Maybe no dwellers, but the division as a whole, is weak.

A lousy Miami Dolphins team QB'd by a young and healthy Dan Marino...

[Ravage!!!]

A lousy Miami Dolphins team QB'd by a young and healthy Dan Marino...

Well, the 85 Bears was a bad example on my part. I thought the Dolphins team of that year was a bad team, and it wasn't. They won 12 games that year.

But, the point made is still the same. A bad team beating a good team in the NFL is not unusual, and it doesn't mean that the team beating them is any good. It just means that game, things went their way.

[Joel]

Well, the 85 Bears was a bad example on my part. I thought the Dolphins team of that year was a bad team, and it wasn't. They won 12 games that year.

But, the point made is still the same. A bad team beating a good team in the NFL is not unusual, and it doesn't mean that the team beating them is any good. It just means that game, things went their way.
But the point WASN'T made; it's valid, but a 12-4 team beating a 15-1 team doesn't make it. In this case, however, I don't even think it's applicable, because we aren't talking about bad teams winning 1 or 2 games against good teams. We're talking about teams winning (depending how you count it) 8/15 or 9/24 games against playoff teams. Bad teams beating playoff teams (at least) 40% of the time is a bit more than "any given team on any given Sunday;" it would basically mean a dart board is as reliable a way to pick a winner as any other (and better than most.)

[Cugel]

I did notice that; in fact, only one AFCW team (SD) has positive net points. In Denvers case, however, it should be remembered that 135 of the 343 points we've allowed were against GB, Detroit and NE. The moral is any team that can pass the ball can destroy our porous secondary, which we'll have to change to be a consistent contender. In our other 11 games we averaged 18.5 pts each, which isn't bad at all; just need to stop elite offenses like GB and NE passing at will.

With the other two teams it boils down to: Oakland has no defence and KC has no offense.

Some of Denver's games were low scoring games because Denver always tries to run the ball and eat up the clock. When the other team has a crappy offense that can't pass the ball well -- or a weak defense that allows Denver to rush for 200 yards, that works, the game is low scoring, and Denver's point totals look GOOD. "We only gave up 16 points. . . ."

But, when they face an actual PASSING team they can't keep up and the score reflects that the defense is overwhelmed.

I don't think the defense just suddenly sucked against the Patriots. That was basically how good they were all year -- it was just disguised by all the running down the clock in some games.

Just as the Patriots defense is much better than their stats would indicate, Denver's is worse. Their offense scores so quickly that they spend a lot of time back out on the field and teams are passing on them all day. That makes their pass defense look a lot worse than it really is. They are better than I thought defensively after watching them this last game.

[Joel]

Some of Denver's games were low scoring games because Denver always tries to run the ball and eat up the clock. When the other team has a crappy offense that can't pass the ball well -- or a weak defense that allows Denver to rush for 200 yards, that works, the game is low scoring, and Denver's point totals look GOOD. "We only gave up 16 points. . . ."

But, when they face an actual PASSING team they can't keep up and the score reflects that the defense is overwhelmed.

I don't think the defense just suddenly sucked against the Patriots. That was basically how good they were all year -- it was just disguised by all the running down the clock in some games.

Just as the Patriots defense is much better than their stats would indicate, Denver's is worse. Their offense scores so quickly that they spend a lot of time back out on the field and teams are passing on them all day. That makes their pass defense look a lot worse than it really is. They are better than I thought defensively after watching them this last game.
If their offense makes their D look bad by putting it on the field too much, maybe they shouldn't do that. It's no big secret that scoring too quickly on offense wears down your D even though you're scoring points; that's one of the many advantages of a ball control offense. Speaking of which, yes, Denver plays that kind of offense; the fact they've won 8/14 games doing it, despite playing 3 of the Leagues top 5 offenses, is not an indicator Denver's a bad team, but just the opposite.

In terms of the Division as a whole, however, consider the current League standings:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/group/1

The 28-28 AFCW has the #10, 15, 18 and 22 team, which averages out to 14.25. That's not a great Division, but not a bad one either; it's in the top half of the draw.

The others average out like this:

AFC North (32-24:) 13
NFC North (31-25:) 14.25
AFC East (29-27:) 16
NFC South (29-27:) 16
NFC West (27-29:) 16.75
NFC East (26-30) 18.25
AFC South (22-34) 21.75

The AFCW is 5th out of 8th in overall wins, but our average ranking is tied with the NFC North for 2nd. If Detroit beats SD the NFCN will be .500 against the AFCW. Based on Division vs. Division standings:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/type/vs-division
it looks like we're our own worst enemy; we're
7-10 against the AFC East (Pats sweep is the difference,)
8-7 against the NFC North,
3-1 against the AFC South and
3-1 against the AFC North.

That's right: As good as the AFC North supposedly is, it's only managed ONE win against the AFC West, when Pitt played KC (our weakest team.) And only won by 4 points.

[MNPatsFan]

Ummm you forgot to include the Patriots in last year's playoff teams for some reason?:confused:

Perhaps because they lost so quickly in the playoffs.:laugh:
In terms of playoff teams, there are two approaches: Past and projected record. The latter is more current but less certain; the AFC West doesn't stack up badly either way though. Of last years playoff teams,

NE is 4-0 against the AFCW,
GB (SB Champs) is 3-1 against the AFCW,
Chicago (host of last years NFC Championship) is 1-3,
The Jets (losers of last years AFC Championship) is 2-2,
Pitt (winners of last years AFC Championship) is 1-0,
Baltimore is 0-1 and
Indy is 0-1.
Total: 11-8

It's more difficult to figure for this years playoff teams because we don't yet know them all. The certain ones are
GB (3-1 against the AFCW)
Houston (0-1)
NE (4-0)
Baltimore (0-1) and
Pitt (1-0)
Total: 8-3

That's not a great record for us, but those are all but two of the best NFL teams (NO and SF are absent.) I never said the AFCW is great, nor would I; however, its record versus bubble teams indicates it's not too bad either:
Detroit (3-0)
Chicago (1-3)
NY (2-2)
Cincy (0-1)
Tennessee (1-0)
Total: 7-6

So I wouldn't bet on ANY AFCW team against the NFLs best, but ALL are just about even money against any potential wildcard team except (maybe) Detroit.

I would also like to note, as an aside, that Denvers win against the Bungles (with Orton, no less) is kind of big, because their 6 losses suggest they're better than their record:

Denver 24-22
SF 13-8
Pitt 24-17
Balt 31-24
Pitt 35-7
Houston 20-19

All those teams but Denver have clinched, and a single score decided all but one of those games. Losing to Baltimore again probably costs Cincy a wildcard and promote the Jets--a team we and Oakland both beat.

That underscores my point: Its record indicates that, although the NFLs best teams can slaughter all the AFCW (and have,) all the AFCW can hold its own against anyone else. I therefore conclude the Division, both as a whole AND INDIVIDUALLY, is neither very good nor very bad. It's a uniformly average Division, hence, even though winning the Division is almost certain to require a winning record, every team is still in the hunt (though a Broncos win @Buffalo would eliminate half of them, and a Raiders loss @KC would eliminate them even if we lose.)

As far as comparing the other Divisions to each other, the same approach is necessary for accuracy; we can't say who fell flat or stepped up without looking at whom they played (and if we REALLY want accuracy we must look at THAT in terms of whom THEY played, hence power rankings, but I believe that's more Dreadnoughts area than mine. ;))

If my only choices are "strong" or "weak" I'll say, "strong" just because anything can happen to a team with an opportunity, and I think every team in this Division has an opportunity against all but the best (witness the fact the two WORST teams in the Division beating what are widely considered the BEST teams in each Conference, in the same weekend, no less.) However, the difficulty of classifying a Division with total record of 28-28 argues we need more categories than simply "strong" or "weak." Neither really applies when the Division's .500 and every team in it is within a game of .500.

My objective with this thread was refuting the notion ANY AFC West winner will be one and done because it will only have "climbed to the top of the turd pile," as Cugel so eloquently put it. I think I've done that.There fixed your post for better accuracy.:D

IMHO, the AFCW is best described as mediocre because it is neither strong nor weak ... just mediocre or average.

[Joel]

Ummm you forgot to include the Patriots in last year's playoff teams for some reason?:confused:

Perhaps because they lost so quickly in the playoffs.:laugh:There fixed your post for better accuracy.:D

IMHO, the AFCW is best described as mediocre because it is neither strong nor weak ... just mediocre or average.
Yeah, I did; my bad. And, yeah, I agree, but that puts paid to the idea that Denver is just trying to climb to the top of the turd pile.