NFL (2020-2024)

[JayhawkCO]

There is no right or wrong answer -- this is strictly a matter of personal opinion.  Which do you care about more if you're an Eagles players, staff, or fans/stakeholders? 

A)  Saquon Barkley breaking the record?

OR

B)  Eagles winning another Vince Lombardi trophy?


The Eagles coaching and management staff seemed to have made their choice -- they prefer (B).  I cannot say I blame them.  If Saquon gets hurt in Week 18 going for an individual record, everyone's job would have been in grave danger.  Fans care more about the Super Bowl, staff care more about their jobs, and players care about their individual stats and (therefore) contracts, and owners/chairmen care more about maximizing the value of their franchise.

It has to be the Super Bowl. Those last forever. Records do not. And, there's a non-zero chance Saquon never plays another game for the Eagles. Since players aren't loyal to teams (nor should they be), it's much better to cheer for team goals than individual.

[webny99]

There is no right or wrong answer -- this is strictly a matter of personal opinion.  Which do you care about more if you're an Eagles players, staff, or fans/stakeholders? 

A)  Saquon Barkley breaking the record?

OR

B)  Eagles winning another Vince Lombardi trophy?

I mean of course you care way more about B, but it comes down to how much impact you think A really has on B.

In my opinion, whether or not Barkley plays in Week 18 has minimal impact on the Eagles' Super Bowl odds. I'm not sure what the odds are on a single player getting injured in a single game, but it's well below 50%... probably closer to 10%, or maybe even less. And there's also the same chance Barkley could get injured in the playoffs too, which compounds with each additional game they play.

Plus it's not like they're even close to guaranteed a Super Bowl even if Barkley stays healthy. Playoff upsets happen all the time. And in a weak NFC, who's to say they couldn't make a run *without* Barkley? The whole point of having a lot roster depth, which the Eagles are notorious for, is to have a backup plan and account for potential injuries. Remember, this is the same team that lost Carson Wentz to injury and won the Super Bowl with Nick Foles. Playing Barkley is a calculated risk, but it's highly unlikely to be the difference in the Eagles winning the Super Bowl or not.

If Saquon gets hurt in Week 18 going for an individual record, everyone's job would have been in grave danger.

Not necessarily. It still depends on what happens in the playoffs. If they lose in the wild card round while having a terrible rushing performance, jobs could be at risk. But if they go on a run and win multiple playoff games anyways, everyone would likely be safe. It's way too early to project what could happen. Only time will tell.

[jgb191]

It has to be the Super Bowl.

I agree with you 100%!

And in a weak NFC, who's to say they couldn't make a run *without* Barkley?

I don't think the NFC is weak.  Yes the Niners are less than full strength this season, but the teams in NFC North division look as imposing as any team in the league.  Next year, the Niners are getting everyone back.

[SEWIGuy]

Two changes I would like to see for the playoffs:

1. Qualification for the playoffs should stand as it does now. (Four division winners and three wild cards). However seeding should be based on overall record. Division winners should not get home games.

2. If there is another team in the conference with a better record, a sub .500 division champion cannot make the playoffs.

[thspfc]

And in a weak NFC, who's to say they couldn't make a run *without* Barkley?

A weak NFC? Seriously? The 7 seed in the NFC is probably going to be 12-5. The 5 seed will be 14-3. Even the 4 seed that is supposedly bringing up the rear as champion of the crap division has beaten both the Lions and Eagles this year. This is one of the strongest conferences in recent memory. Football goes beyond "how old is your quarterback and what round was he drafted in?"

[webny99]

And in a weak NFC, who's to say they couldn't make a run *without* Barkley?

A weak NFC? Seriously? The 7 seed in the NFC is probably going to be 12-5. The 5 seed will be 14-3. Even the 4 seed that is supposedly bringing up the rear as champion of the crap division has beaten both the Lions and Eagles this year. This is one of the strongest conferences in recent memory.

The playoff field may be strong in terms of win-loss records, which are mostly inflated because the rest of the conference is so terrible, but whoever comes out of the NFC will rightly be an underdog and probably a significant one in the Super Bowl. And there's no dominant team. Anyone in the NFC playoffs could appear in and win the NFC title game and it would not be a shock.

[JayhawkCO]

And in a weak NFC, who's to say they couldn't make a run *without* Barkley?

A weak NFC? Seriously? The 7 seed in the NFC is probably going to be 12-5. The 5 seed will be 14-3. Even the 4 seed that is supposedly bringing up the rear as champion of the crap division has beaten both the Lions and Eagles this year. This is one of the strongest conferences in recent memory.

The playoff field may be strong in terms of win-loss records, which are mostly inflated because the rest of the conference is so terrible, but whoever comes out of the NFC will rightly be an underdog and probably a significant one in the Super Bowl. And there's no dominant team. Anyone in the NFC playoffs could appear in and win the NFC title game and it would not be a shock.

If you put in TB for the NFC South, the NFC playoff teams are 28-7 against the AFC this year, with three teams being 5-0. Tampa is the only one of those teams to be under .500 at 2-3, and their three losses are all against playoff teams (KC, BAL, DEN). (Assuming Denver doesn't choke against KC backups this weekend.)

If you say TB and DEN grab the last playoff spots, NFC playoff teams are 7-6 against AFC playoff teams.

[thspfc]

And in a weak NFC, who's to say they couldn't make a run *without* Barkley?

A weak NFC? Seriously? The 7 seed in the NFC is probably going to be 12-5. The 5 seed will be 14-3. Even the 4 seed that is supposedly bringing up the rear as champion of the crap division has beaten both the Lions and Eagles this year. This is one of the strongest conferences in recent memory.

The playoff field may be strong in terms of win-loss records, which are mostly inflated because the rest of the conference is so terrible, but whoever comes out of the NFC will rightly be an underdog and probably a significant one in the Super Bowl. And there's no dominant team. Anyone in the NFC playoffs could appear in and win the NFC title game and it would not be a shock.

I hate to be blunt . . . have you been paying attention?

I mean, a quick look at the standings debunks the whole idea. The AFC has way more trainwrecks, teams that are nearly incapable of winning a game, than the NFC does.

Do you actually think the Lions or Eagles would be a "significant" underdog in the Super Bowl? I mean, if a point spread of 2.5 at most is "significant" then I guess so. Unless the AFC representative wins every playoff game by 20 or the NFC representative loses their starting QB to injury, I don't understand how you can figure that the spread will be big in favor of the AFC.

If the 17-1 Chiefs go up against the Rams or Commanders in the Super Bowl, then yeah, the Chiefs would be a big favorite. But for that matter if the Lions face the Chargers, the Lions would be double digit favorites.

[webny99]

NFC playoff teams are 28-7 against the AFC this year

NFC playoff teams are 7-6 against AFC playoff teams

Put 2 and 2 together, and all but one of the losses have been against the team(s) they could face in the Super Bowl.

[JayhawkCO]

NFC playoff teams are 28-7 against the AFC this year

NFC playoff teams are 7-6 against AFC playoff teams

Put 2 and 2 together, and all but one of the losses have been against the team(s) they could face in the Super Bowl.

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

Compared to the NFC playoff teams' 28-7 record against the other conference, the AFC playoff teams went 25-10.

Advantage NFC.

And obviously the AFC playoff teams went 6-7 against the NFC playoff teams.

Advantage NFC.

So, I don't see how you're possibly making the assertion that the AFC is far superior to the NFC. If anything, the NFC is slightly better based on the stats.

[webny99]

I mean, a quick look at the standings debunks the whole idea. The AFC has way more trainwrecks, teams that are nearly incapable of winning a game, than the NFC does.

I'll admit that calling the rest of the NFC "terrible" was a bit strong. It's a more muddled conference overall, despite having some really good teams at the top. That's why it feels like anyone could win it. The AFC doesn't feel like that at all. There's a few great teams, a few middling ones (some which may end up in the playoffs), and a whole bunch of awful teams at the bottom.

But it really comes down to the fact that none of the really good teams on the NFC side have true superstar QB's (except maybe Stafford, but the Rams are towards the bottom of the NFC contender list), while all of the really good teams on the AFC side do. The top 3 QB's in the playoffs are unquestionably all from the AFC, make that the top 4 if Burrow somehow gets in.

[Max Rockatansky]

Goffs and Hurts seem like star QBs to me.  Love is right on the cusp of being one if he isn't already.

[webny99]

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

My point is really that 21 of the wins in the top stat evaporated from the bottom stat because the vast majority of them were against some truly awful teams who will have no relevance in the playoffs.

[JayhawkCO]

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

My point is really that 21 of the wins in the top stat evaporated from the bottom stat because the vast majority of them were against some truly awful teams who will have no relevance in the playoffs.

OK. Let's turn this around then. Which statistics show that the AFC is better than the NFC?

[webny99]

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

My point is really that 21 of the wins in the top stat evaporated from the bottom stat because the vast majority of them were against some truly awful teams who will have no relevance in the playoffs.

OK. Let's turn this around then. Which statistics show that the AFC is better than the NFC?

I really wasn't trying to argue statistics. I should've just said the NFC doesn't have one truly dominant team that stands out from the rest rather than that the conference overall is weak. Anyone could make a run, that's all.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not going to answer why you think the NFC doesn't have any star quarterbacks? 

[JayhawkCO]

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

My point is really that 21 of the wins in the top stat evaporated from the bottom stat because the vast majority of them were against some truly awful teams who will have no relevance in the playoffs.

OK. Let's turn this around then. Which statistics show that the AFC is better than the NFC?

I really wasn't trying to argue statistics. I should've just said the NFC doesn't have one truly dominant team that stands out from the rest rather than that the conference overall is weak. Anyone could make a run, that's all.

I would make a wager that the Super Bowl combatants will be from KC/BAL/BUF vs. DET/MIN/PHI.

[jeffandnicole]

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

My point is really that 21 of the wins in the top stat evaporated from the bottom stat because the vast majority of them were against some truly awful teams who will have no relevance in the playoffs.

OK. Let's turn this around then. Which statistics show that the AFC is better than the NFC?

I really wasn't trying to argue statistics. I should've just said the NFC doesn't have one truly dominant team that stands out from the rest rather than that the conference overall is weak. Anyone could make a run, that's all.

I would make a wager that the Super Bowl combatants will be from KC/BAL/BUF vs. DET/MIN/PHI.

Kind of a low-return wager when you pick the top 3 from each league.  Betting $100 to win $110?

[thspfc]

But it really comes down to the fact that none of the really good teams on the NFC side have true superstar QB's (except maybe Stafford, but the Rams are towards the bottom of the NFC contender list), while all of the really good teams on the AFC side do. The top 3 QB's in the playoffs are unquestionably all from the AFC, make that the top 4 if Burrow somehow gets in.

I mean, a quick look at the standings debunks the whole idea. The AFC has way more trainwrecks, teams that are nearly incapable of winning a game, than the NFC does.

I'll admit that calling the rest of the NFC "terrible" was a bit strong. It's a more muddled conference overall, despite having some really good teams at the top. That's why it feels like anyone could win it. The AFC doesn't feel like that at all. There's a few great teams, a few middling ones (some which may end up in the playoffs), and a whole bunch of awful teams at the bottom.

The original post was concerning the Eagles' ability to make a run without Saquon in a "weak" NFC. So we're not really talking about the presence of star quarterbacks or how many teams are true Super Bowl contenders or whatever. We're not even really talking about what the Super Bowl point spread will be.

On the note of which conference has more teams capable of making a run, the most generous possible position for your argument is that it's 3-2 in favor of the AFC. KC/BUF/BAL vs. DET/PHI. That's not enough of a gap for me to completely disregard the depth of the NFC. To illustrate my point:

Here is how I view the AFC:

Legit contenders
Chiefs
Bills
Ravens
__________________________________________________
Legit playoff teams but not contenders
Steelers
Chargers
__________________________________________________
Mediocre teams that will make the playoffs
Texans
Broncos
__________________________________________________
Mediocre teams that won't make the playoffs
Bengals
Dolphins
__________________________________________________
Colts are somewhere in this in-between
__________________________________________________
Trainwrecks
Jets
Jags
Patriots
Raiders
Browns
Titans
__________________________________________________

And here is how I view the NFC:

Legit contenders
Lions
Eagles
Vikings
__________________________________________________
Legit playoff teams (I think all 4 teams in this group have a higher ceiling and are more dangerous than the Steelers and Chargers
Rams
Bucs
Packers
Commies
__________________________________________________
Mediocre teams that won't make the playoffs
Seahawks
Falcons
__________________________________________________
Below average teams
Cardinals
Cowboys
49ers
__________________________________________________
Trainwrecks
Bears
Saints
Panthers
Giants
__________________________________________________

By my estimation, team #7 in the NFC is better than team #4 in the AFC. And if you wanna bump the Vikings down to tier 2 in the NFC, that's fine, that doesn't change my position. The depth of the NFC is so much stronger than the AFC that it doesn't really matter if the AFC has one more elite team or one more star QB.

The elite AFC teams can afford to play an off game in the first round - even the second round in the case of the Chiefs - and they'll still get through. If the Lions or Eagles have an off game in the divisional? They're done. The team they play will be good enough to beat them. But the Steelers anemic offense simply isn't going into KC and winning. The Chargers don't have an it factor. The Broncos and Texans don't have much of anything at this point, aside from Surtain for the Broncos and a couple edge rushers for the Texans.

[ZLoth]

And here is how I view the NFC:

Below average teams
Cardinals
Cowboys
49ers
__________________________________________________
Trainwrecks
Bears
Saints
Panthers
Giants

I disagree. The Cowboys belong in the "Trainwreck" category because of decisions that will have to be made in the off season because of their extremely tiny salary cap room.

As for the 49ers... I believe a better season will come in 2025 partially because the NFC West goes against the NFC South and the AFC South teams.

[thspfc]

And here is how I view the NFC:

Below average teams
Cardinals
Cowboys
49ers
__________________________________________________
Trainwrecks
Bears
Saints
Panthers
Giants

I disagree. The Cowboys belong in the "Trainwreck" category because of decisions that will have to be made in the off season because of their extremely tiny salary cap room.

As for the 49ers... I believe a better season will come in 2025 partially because the NFC West goes against the NFC South and the AFC South teams.

In the context of the discussion, which only concerns this season, the Cowboys are not a trainwreck.

[JayhawkCO]

That's sure one way to spin the stats as if these show your point of view...

My point is really that 21 of the wins in the top stat evaporated from the bottom stat because the vast majority of them were against some truly awful teams who will have no relevance in the playoffs.

OK. Let's turn this around then. Which statistics show that the AFC is better than the NFC?

I really wasn't trying to argue statistics. I should've just said the NFC doesn't have one truly dominant team that stands out from the rest rather than that the conference overall is weak. Anyone could make a run, that's all.

I would make a wager that the Super Bowl combatants will be from KC/BAL/BUF vs. DET/MIN/PHI.

Kind of a low-return wager when you pick the top 3 from each league.  Betting $100 to win $110?

Maybe so, but my point was that webny99 is saying that the NFC is wide open while the AFC has clear favorites. In my opinion, there are three clear favorites from both conferences.

[Henry]

And here is how I view the NFC:

Below average teams
Cardinals
Cowboys
49ers
__________________________________________________
Trainwrecks
Bears
Saints
Panthers
Giants

I disagree. The Cowboys belong in the "Trainwreck" category because of decisions that will have to be made in the off season because of their extremely tiny salary cap room.

As for the 49ers... I believe a better season will come in 2025 partially because the NFC West goes against the NFC South and the AFC South teams.

In the context of the discussion, which only concerns this season, the Cowboys are not a trainwreck.

Unfortunately, you have the Bears in the right category. They've been a trainwreck ever since they fired Mike Ditka over 30 years ago. Sure, there's the Super Bowl season of 2006, but everything else is a major disappointment.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm sad Saquon isn't going for the bye but since the Eagles have to play WCW it's understandable that they want to rest.

[mgk920]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike