AFC vs NFC whos stronger?

[jason17]

I'll say the NFC . Best DE's/RB's/ QB's /TE's/ Safetys/ OL

I think the NFC has the best teams overall without a doubt.

[MarkieMark48]

^^^ I hate to break it to you, but the AFC has the top 3 QB's in the NFL

[BigEric]

^^^ I hate to break it to you, but the AFC has the top 3 QB's in the NFL

Exactly.

[jason17]

^^^ I hate to break it to you, but the AFC has the top 3 QB's in the NFL

Other than Peyton/Brady/Garrard i don't see any one else that great.

[VJ18]

Other than Peyton/Brady/Garrard i don't see any one else that great.

They got Rothlisberger as well... and Palmer those two deserve some credit... but i will agree the NFC has a stronger Defense while the AFC is Offensivally stronger

[Boozerguy47]

Other than Peyton/Brady/Garrard i don't see any one else that great.

Garrard isn't "great". Normally he throws for under 200 yards in a game. Manning and Brady throw for at least 250 basically every week. My point is Garrard hasn't had to carry a team yet. He isn't their number one option on offense. They run the ball a ton.

[Yendil]

^^^ I hate to break it to you, but the AFC has the top 3 QB's in the NFL

considering its overall its the NFC and who is the third QB??? Peyton, Brady, ?????????????????????????????????? don't think you have the top 3 buddy, definately top 2 but name me the third QB who is better than the NFC QBs in Romo, Hasselbeck, McNabb (Healthy), Favre (if he plays), Bulger, Brees. And no Big Ben is not better than all of them sorry either is Carson Palmer. They may be better than a couple of them but not all of them.

[kyomack]

i think the nfc has the best team in the cowboys....also the nfc has the more balanced teams, while the afc has a couple really good teams and a couple really bad teams...so overall the afc has the pats chargers colts so i would say the afc has the best teams

[MarkieMark48]

brady manning and palmer are the 3 that I was referring to, i guess romo could be better than palmer... but i think thats close... ok 3 out of top 5 easily

[Yendil]

brady manning and palmer are the 3 that I was referring to, i guess romo could be better than palmer... but i think thats close... ok 3 out of top 5 easily

romo and bulger are both better than palmer and mcnabb (no great receivers) and hasselbeck (no great receivers) are comparable. The real big knock on Palmer is that he throws quite a bit of INTs his ration is pretty high, and with TJ and Johnson his ratio should be a bit better and his percent should be at least under 4%, as it stands now he has a 5.1% which is really high, so it shows his poor decision making. So top 5 is arguable, but that doesn't take away from Brady and Manning easily being the top 2 in the NFL.

[patriotsrock2k2]

brady, peyton, palmer, and big ben are all top QBs and have all the rings outside of Eli's

nfc has romo who i might put 5

[Yendil]

brady, peyton, palmer, and big ben are all top QBs and have all the rings outside of Eli's

nfc has romo who i might put 5

rings don't mean crap in stats sorry, QBs arent the sole reason for a victory, saying they have rings is just an ignorant remark not backed by any stats what so ever, by your logic alone they are all better than Dan Marino because they have rings.

[WillisLovechild]

romo and bulger are both better than palmer and mcnabb (no great receivers) and hasselbeck (no great receivers) are comparable. The real big knock on Palmer is that he throws quite a bit of INTs his ration is pretty high, and with TJ and Johnson his ratio should be a bit better and his percent should be at least under 4%, as it stands now he has a 5.1% which is really high, so it shows his poor decision making. So top 5 is arguable, but that doesn't take away from Brady and Manning easily being the top 2 in the NFL.

and romo doesnt throw a lot of INT's? and it doesnt show poor decision making at all, WR's can blow routes, coverage can break down, a number of things can happen that doesnt make it his fault. palmer also has a pretty bad o-line since steinbach left, he is no question a top 5 QB, and a top 3 IMO. romo is not better, you can just use your argument to prove that. he has so many weapons on offense and a great o-line, but he still manages to throw a bunch of INT's, only one less than palmer, who doesnt have nearly the overall help on offense that palmer does.

rings don't mean crap in stats sorry, QBs arent the sole reason for a victory, saying they have rings is just an ignorant remark not backed by any stats what so ever, by your logic alone they are all better than Dan Marino because they have rings.

stats are overrated, and to say rings don't mean crap shows how little you know. by ur logic, brett favre is the best QB of all time, cuz he has the best stats. so ur saying that fran tarkenton is better than joe montana, cuz fran had more TD's and yards. guys with more rings get remembered more than guys without. montana, brady, elway, bradshaw, etc... bradshaw is a good example of a guy without great stats who managed to get the rings. and dont give me crap like his D carried him, cuz football is offense and defense, someone had to lead the offense.

to answer this thread again, AFC is clearly better, even though the NFC is catching up.

[IBleedPurple]

I think top to bottom the NFC is better, but as for the best teams (and the worst), the AFC takes it. They have the 4 of the top 5 teams in the Pats, Colts, Jags, and Chargers, but after that, severe drop off. Teams like anyone in the NFC East, the Packers, Vikes, and Seahawks are some of the decent teams that make up a huge list of fringe teams.

Should've included a poll

[SandyVI]

I'd say AFC by a longshot.