The Weak NFC West
FOOCH'S NOTE: Very solid article. Thought I'd roll this to the front page.
Every NFL pundit is going to shout this headline between now and the end of the 2009-2010 season. If you've already been watching NFL Network, ESPN NFL Live, or been reading the numerous NFL sources online than I'm sure you've read the answer to this question:
Can the Arizona Cardinals repeat there trip the Super Bowl? (always accompanied with a little chuckle)
Answer: Of course. There are obvious flaws on that team and they benefited from some luck last year. However all they have to do is beat up on their weak division opponents to get themselves back in the playoffs. We know, once you’re in the playoffs anything can happen. Look at the Cardinals last year!
Consider this article a declaration of war. Not on the Cardinals, but every pundit, TV analyst, journalist, beat writer or beatnik who utter this answer again.
Why declare war? I've head this answer for 23 years and counting (I'm confident its origins date back further than my attention span). The NFC West is full of crap teams and one ho-hum group is going to figure out how tie their shoe laces and punch their ticket to the playoffs. Year in and year out I hear this insult and eventual explanation of our division champion. I've heard it attached to the 49ers of 80's and 90's, Greatest Show on Turf Rams, Holmgren's Seahawks and now it's being stuck to the Arizona Cardinals.
According to the pundits we've been the cellar division for the better part three decades, even while switching out and bringing in new teams to the fold. Has the division really been that awful for such a long period of time or just the analysis? I believe it's the later. Football guys for all their acclaimed smarts just don't understand our division.
NFC West has been ruled by dominant champions
Dating back to the mid 1970's (as far as I care to look back for this discussion) the NFC West has been under the control of five teams: Rams late 70's, 49ers 80's-90's, Greatest Show on Turf Rams 99-01, Seahawks 04-07 and believe we are in the midst of a Cardinal era 2008-TBD.
A snarky analyst will say these teams have been boasted by the lackluster teams that comprise the rest of division. A smart analyst will see a trend. Beginning with the 49ers the NFC West has produced some of the NFL's all time great offenses with the tradition being continued by the Cards.
Everyone knows the 1st goal and step of an NFL team is to win their division. To win the West you need a team with a great offense (score 30+ points) along with enough defensive personnel to slow down your rivals great offense (not give up 40+ points) in order to topple the perennial division winner. These aren't the kind of teams you build overnight. It takes years to amass that much talent and teams are usually steam rolled by the division leader in the meantime.
Often the NFC West is grilled for having such hapless teams at the bottom. People have yet to realize that NFC West teams are forced to take a slower, much broader approach to building their teams if they want to compete with the division leader. Quick reloads don't get you anywhere in this division.
Ok, the NFC West always has one good team and the rest are crappy
In a sense you can say the NFC West doesn't produce as many wild card contenders as other divisions but I think there are a few good reasons for this.
Schedule favors the East and detracts from the West
The nerve of the Patriots and rest of the NFL to bellyache about having to travel so often to the West coast and play 1:00PM Pacific time games (4:00 PM Eastern, god forbid they complain about Sunday or Monday night prime time games). They said it cuts into preparation time and the players aren't used to that schedule. Lets all cry! It was such a crime that the rules committee passed a resolution preventing any non NFC/AFC West team from having to play no more than two 1:00 PM Pacific Time zone games a regular season (assuming you play both the NFC/AFC West). Jed York had a right to hit a few people over the head with a chair during that meeting.
It may be lost to the rest of the NFL, but NFC West teams are forced travel east on average of 3/4 times a regular season to play 10:00 AM Pacific Time games. Same travel distance, even less preparation time, and OMG is that an early start! A vast majority of those games end in losses for the road team. Are eastern teams really that much better across the board at home? No, it's a favorable quark in the schedule. Not only does it detract from the NFC West teams’ record, it also pads the record of the remaining NFC teams. Often this one or two game swing is the difference between a 9-7 playoff team and 8-8 or 7-9 team outside looking in. Our 2nd place team is usually outside looking in. Just a little hint, if you don't play in the NFC/AFC West your games start at 10:00 AM our time and their isn’t much difference between traveling to Chicago or New York New Jersey coming from San Fran.
NFC West teams don't have a great home field advantage
With the exception of Seattle no NFC West team has a great home field advantage to fall back on. Other than the players emerging from the tunnel, teams aren't intimidated or have to take extra preparation time to enter San Francisco, Arizona or St. Louis. The Rams used speed and fast turf to their advantage for awhile but it wasn't an atmosphere advantage, nor can it be counted on season after season. Rarely does an opponent have to deal with the noise level, momentum or intimidation of a rabid, noisy fan base. Not even a notable climate advantage can be seized. Two weather regulated dome teams and the Bay Area weather is absolutely pristine during the fall.
The AFC West is the opposite in this regard. The Raiders have the ever-so intimidating Black Hole. KC has a rabid, noisy fan base sitting on top of the field. Denver plays in the thin air of mile high. Even in sub par years these teams can count on the home field advantage to make themselves more competitive.
What about number of Pro Bowlers? Not so many in the NFC West.
Steve Mariucci has been touting this argument. He should know better and obviously the Emmy people don’t. In the NFL this factor has never been a strong indicator of player talent or roster strength. Winning teams send an inordinate amount of players to the pro bowl and while good players on non playoff teams get passed over. We’ve been over this before. If the 49ers go 9-7 and make a wildcard birth than Frank Gore, Patrick Willis and Andy Lee go to the Pro Bowl. At 7-9 we are lucky if one player gets sent.
Conclusion
To understand the level of competition in the NFC West you need to dig deeper than the records to get a true picture.
1) NFC West is dominated by a powerful, offensive juggernaut leader. Conversely it requires a higher, longer climb to supplant these teams as the division leader.
2) The schedules time zone quark (or fix) is a disadvantage to the NFC West and favors the rest of the NFC. This can be difference between wild card contender and non contender.
3) For the most part, NFC West teams don't have a natural home field advantage. It's easier in our division for a road team to steal a win and harder for our teams to protect the home turf.
Silver Lining
What doesn't get brought up enough is how many NFC Champions the NFC West has produced. Dating back to 1970 the NFC West has produced 11 champions with 13 other teams making it to the championship game. That's second only to the NFC East (12 champions + 17 championship game appearances). The Central/North/South conglomerate has been no where near as successful.
In the last 10 years the Rams (twice), Seahawks and Cardinals have represented the NFC in the Super Bowl. For such a terrible division we sure kick a lot of playoff tail.
A big reason for this playoff success has something to do with the factors above. You need a great offensive team while remaining stout on defense. You have to have superior talent to win early road games when your team is half asleep. You have to beat teams on talent and execution without the safety of a home field advantage. These same factors that drive the perception our division being weak also strengthen and make our division champion teams hardier.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
2 recs |
42 comments
|
Comments
Interesting
Definitely worth the read, and the time you put into it.
by Andrew Davidson on May 16, 2009 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
AFC West is hands down the worse division in football
M. S. #50
by rlott#42 on May 16, 2009 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I still think ours is worse.
At least the Broncos and Chargers were playing for a playoff spot on the last week last year. We finished second, and really didn’t have TOO much of a shot at the playoffs halfway through the season. They are terrible, but our division (to me) is still the worst in football at the moment. I mean, we DID have three of the four teams pick in the top 10 (Two in the top FOUR picks) of the draft this year. That is just AWFUL.
by Blank x2 on May 16, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They suck more than us now though...
Jay Cutler is gone and McDumbass hasn’t really done anything right so far.
Not to mention that the Charger’s once awesome D looks like cr*p nowadays.
by chikmagnet_565 on May 16, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, AFC West is worse
The Chiefs, Raiders and Broncos will all be fighting to win 5 games. The Seahawks probably aren’t as bad as they played last year and the Niners and Cardinals should both be .500+ plus teams.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on May 18, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, really?
You expect 2, possibly 3 teams to come out of our division with .500+ records? I am shocked to hear you say this, method.
by shlecko on May 18, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that it's...
… that wild. I think the Cards are definitely at least a .500 team, and likely better if their key players (i.e. Warner, Fitz, and OL) stay healthy). The 49ers and Seahawks will probably dance around the .500 mark. The only team that will more than likely not finish near .500 is the Rams. A good bounce or two for the 49ers and/or Seahawks, and the division will have at least two .500 teams.
by sfgfan on May 18, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AFCW
Will most likely only have 1 team above 500
As of now I would say that team is San Diego because of the enormous amount of talent on the roster.
None of the other teams are really solid enough to do anything….Perhaps the Chiefs if Matt Cassell turns out to be a real QB.
by chikmagnet_565 on May 18, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 not 3
I suspect the Cardinals definitely finish at least 9-7 and I think that the Seahawks or Niners, with the edge going to the Niners, have a very realistic shot at winning 9 games as well. Really that isn’t saying too much.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on May 19, 2009 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WIN THE WEST!!
Sincerely,
Nolan.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on May 16, 2009 5:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
/shakes head
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on May 22, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good article
2 things. I think you mean rabid, not rapid. Last is the Cardinals NOW have a significant advantage with home field. Their stadium is SOOOO loud remember last year we couldn’t even hear what yard line we were on and lost the game? I was there, it was intense. Their stadium gets MUCH louder than ours.
by hudd07 on May 16, 2009 5:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I still consider them a work in progress. They have showed flashes of having a good home field advantage. Still not place that intimates the league.
by bignerd on May 16, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another spelling failure, at least correct the earlier one
by bignerd on May 16, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dont know who the cardinals are planning to “beat up” but it aint us.
NINERS 4 LIFE
by LADubbz45 on May 16, 2009 9:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So true.
As I recall the Cards beat the Niners in the first game by playing keepaway from Martz’s three and out offense, and won the second game when Martz’s wires fried in the last minute. Not exactly lording it over the Niners. So far in the off-season I don’t see the Cards creating any distance between themselves and the rest of the league. Quite the opposite.
On the bigger question about what’s a weak division and what’s not, the first step to the playoffs is to beat the teams in your division. You play six games with them. Everything’s relative. Except I feel bad for the Texans. They are in a tough, tough division.
by Bob On The Coast on May 17, 2009 7:37 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I wish the browns could play in the NFC west. The AFC North has the Steelers and the Ravens in it
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 17, 2009 9:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Solid post
I’m a front-page writer over at TST, the SBN Rams blog. I stop by NN from time to time to see what’s up with you guys. I just wanted to commend bignerd on this story, and by extension, Niners Nation for having a hell of a site.
I’m constantly dealing with fans of teams from the South and North on the strength of their division, which while valid in a regular season sense, is completely overshadowed by their post-season foibles.
To add to your “lack of a home advantage in the NFC West” theme, I think that often plays into our favor in that it makes the teams in our division stronger on the road. The Rams often have to contend with a home game where the visiting fan base shows up in large numbers at our games. I think it builds resiliency which is huge going into the playoffs, considering we so rarely get a first-round bye.
So props to you guys for your site, and here’s hoping we go 2-0 against you this season. (I had to get a little smack in, no?)
Your uncle molests collies.
by 3k on May 18, 2009 12:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I still think the NFC West has been pretty weak for awhile
I’m not buying into the East/West traveling advantages/disadvantages. Teams have a week to prepare for games if they can’t figure out how to get themselves ready for east coast games then they deserve to lose. Regarding the lack of home field advantage, whose fault is that?
I’m going to name my two worst divisions in the NFL over the last 7 years (since the divisional realignment) and we’ll see how the NFC West stacks up.
2008
NFC West (worst)
AFC West (2nd worst)
2007
NFC West
AFC West
*AFC East – Honorable mention
2006
NFC West
NFC South
2005
AFC East
NFC West
2004
NFC West
NFC North
2003
AFC North
NFC North
2002
NFC North
AFC North
*NFC West – Honorable mention.
The NFC West makes the list 5 times (4 times as the worst division) with 1 honorable mention. That’s basically 3 more times than any other conference over that span. The NFC West just doesn’t win enough games to not be considered one of the worst divisions over the last handful+ years. They do tend to put out one pretty solid team but the division winner routinely only wins 9 games during the regular season. Make all the excuses you want for why the NFC West can’t win road games but the fact remains this is the NFL, not college, and these guys get paid a pretty penny to travel and win games on the road (I’m not even sure if the NFC West wins their fair share of games at home).
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on May 18, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
NFC West results (from the years you mention them)
2002 – the Niners were the lone rep from the NFC West in the playoffs, winning the wild card round, and losing in the divisional round. They finished the regular season 10-6, earning the #4 seed. The NFC North, had the Packers at 12-4, and the rest of the division 13-35. (The NFC west 22-29, outside of the 49ers).
2004 – Both the Seahawks and Rams made the playoffs, with the Rams upsetting the Seahawks in the wild card round, before losing in the divisional round. Seahawks won the division at 9-7 (4 seed), and the Rams sniped a WC berth at 8-8, and the 5 seed. Philly finished 13-3 in the NFC East, the rest of the teams? 6-10.
2005 – The Seahawks were 13-3 and the number one seed in the NFC. They went on to lose the Super Bowl to Pittsburgh. The rest of the teams in the NFC West finished under .500.
2007 – Seahawks win the 4 seed at 10-6, Arizona is 8-8 (misses playoffs), Rams and Niners are sub-.500. Seahawks win wild card round, lose in divisional playoffs. Aside from the division winning Bucs (9-7), all teams in the NFC South finish sub-.500.
2008 – Cardinals win the 4 seed, at 9-7, no team in the West finished about .500. Cardinals represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, some how, and lose to the PIttsburgh Steelers.
After seeing these results, I would say that the NFC West has been the weakest division twice, with no honorable mentions. Those years? 2005 and 2008. The same years the NFC West champion represented the NFC in the Super Bowl. I’m not saying the fact that the teams made the SB thwart the notion that the West was worst, but it still says something about our division. Any team has just as good of chance to make it out of the NFC, no matter the division.
by Andrew Davidson on May 18, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Combined Division Wins
Basically, I kind of just used how many combined wins a division had and then use some judgement mixed in with playoff success for tie breakers. If record is good enough to determine the draft order it should be good enough to measure a division’s success.
RE: 2002 – I probably shouldn’t have included NFC as an honorable mention I guess the division might have been just good enough not to get mentioned.
RE: 2004 – I wouldn’t get too excited about having two playoff teams in the division. Especially when they were 9-7 and 8-8 teams that failed to beat a non-NFC West team in the playoffs. Ultimately it’s the Niners’ fault that, overall, the division was as weak as it was. If a division has a 2 win team and tops out with one 9 win team that division really does suck. The NFC West won 25 regular season games that year, the NFC North won 29 and the NFC East won 31.
RE: 2005 – We’re in agreement that outside of the Seahawks the rest of the division was abysmal.
RE: 2007 – 8-8 teams should never make the playoffs, it’s unfortunate when they do. Again the NFC West won a league low 26 games, same with the AFC West. Although the AFC East (outside of NE) and the NFC South were both pretty poor and do probably deserve to be in the discussion.
I would say that seeing as how the NFC West has routinely lost more games than any other division it is pretty safe to think that it has in deed been the worst division over the last 7 years. I think all that having a couple of Super Bowl teams from the NFC West during that span says is that the playoffs are a crap shoot.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on May 19, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree
two NFC West teams making the Super Bowl is a perfect example of NFL Parody.
While combined wins is a factor, the lower the amount of team wins, means the guys on the top of the division feasted on division play to bolster the records.
I’m definitely not saying the NFC West hasn’t been less than impressive, but other divisions have displayed the same kind of ineptitude as well. I think for the reason that the NFL has so much balance, means no division is the weakest, or the strongest for a long amount of time.
While the NFC West has produced a season with a 9-7 and 8-8 team to make the playoffs, that also means the rest of the conference was poor that season. The Rams at 8-8 secured the 5 seed, another 8-8 team got the 6. The rest of the conference was terrible that year, and atleast the West produced two teams.
The NFC West is a hilarious division, and not the strongest.
by Andrew Davidson on May 19, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care
if the SEC is better than the NFC West, as long as we win that bitch. I’m throwing a huge party the day we make it back to the playoffs, and you are all invited.
by Blank x2 on May 20, 2009 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We don’t have the kind of money that gets thrown the SEC to compete.
by bignerd on May 20, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
And even they can’t top USC’s football pay roll. I’d bet my life that USC’s players get paid more than the Niners players.
by Blank x2 on May 21, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are are a mom and pop shop compared to USC.
by bignerd on May 21, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gil Brandt
Said that the 49ers will win the NFC west.
Finally someone shows the Niners a little respect.
:)
by chikmagnet_565 on May 22, 2009 7:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cards
The Cards lost their OC, DC, and several key players. Bolding and Dockett are unhappy and the Niners are loaded on both sides of the ball. This year the Cards and Sea Turtles will be fighting for second place in the NFC West. This is the era of Singletary.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on May 23, 2009 6:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bolding?
Boldin
Don’t get ahead of yourself dude.
Just wait for the season to play out.
by chikmagnet_565 on May 24, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice article but . . .
Beginning with the 49ers the NFC West has produced some of the NFL’s all time great offenses with the tradition being continued by the Cards. 1) NFC West is dominated by a powerful, offensive juggernaut leader. Conversely it requires a higher, longer climb to supplant these teams as the division leader.
Give me a break. With all due respect to the Cards, their offense had a nice season but to say they are continuing the Niner tradition of great offenses is not only a bit of a stretch, it’s a full-fledged exaggeration. Warner had a great season but falls a bit short of Montana/Young. To spare an argument I’ll call the WR position a wash although the combo of Jerry Rice and John Taylor had no equal. The Niners got better production out of their TEs, especially when Brent Jones was at the position.
The big offensive difference was the running backs and OL. Last season James barely got over 500 yards. The Niners with Roger Craig gaining his 1000 yards both on the ground and in the air had a much more dominating ground game and balanced offense.
A team with a mediocre ground game like the Cards is NOT an “offensive juggernaut”. This team in no way can be compared with the Niners of the 80s. For one thing, the Cards lost 7 games. The 81 Niners lost 3; the 1984 team (the best team in history) lost one; in 88 they lost 3 and in 89 they lost two. The Cards lost 7 games in one season; the Niners lost a total of 9 over four seasons. They also WON each Super Bowl they played in, something the Cards weren’t able to do in their only appearance.
The Cards are a nice team but in no way the juggernaut the Niners had in the 80s.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on May 24, 2009 6:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
A team with a mediocre ground game like the Cards is NOT an "offensive juggernaut". This team in no way can be compared with the Niners of the 80s. For one thing, the Cards lost 7 games. The 81 Niners lost 3; the 1984 team (the best team in history) lost one; in 88 they lost 3 and in 89 they lost two. The Cards lost 7 games in one season; the Niners lost a total of 9 over four seasons.
Seriously? Way to hand pick four out of ten seasons and then combine them together to make it sound like the 49ers lost 9 “over four seasons”, as if they were continuous. What you’re ignoring is this: between 1981 and 1982, the 49ers had four seasons where they lost six games. That’s pretty close to seven.
I agree with you that comparing the Cardinal offense to the 49ers offense of the 80s is over the top, but making your point by criticizing the Cardinals’ win-loss in ONE season to four hand-picked years from the 49ers is absolutely silly. Again, I agree the the Cardinals’ offense is probably nothing like the 49ers of the 80s, but their offense is good (probably the best in the NFC West by a big margin) is kidding themselves.
by sfgfan on May 26, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cards
have a very good offense. I’m just saying that to call it a “juggernaut” is a bit far-fetched. No team whose leading running back barely got 500 yards is a true juggernaut. Especially a team that lost 7 games. They’re a good team facing a tough season. It will be interesting.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on May 27, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
when your third reciever has over 1000 yards recieving, you are dabbling in juggernaut land. not to mention what happened in the post season. not quite on the same level as the record setting offenses but still a great offense. Its similar to saying garcia carried on a tradition of 49ers quarterbacks.
People take potshots at the nfc west but their is no denying the success of the champions of the nfc west every year. they almost never go out in the first round.
by FG4PREZ on May 28, 2009 6:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
on the Garcia comment. Most fans don’t realize that he had a losing record as 49ers QB and my most vivid memories are the frustration at seeing him throw the ball at gopher level. He had a couple of nice seasons, but in no way came close to not only Montana and Young, but to Albert, Tittle or Brodie.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on May 28, 2009 7:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Geez
Will you ever use the “+reply” link/button? Trying to figure out who you’re replying/commenting to is ridiculous.
by sfgfan on May 28, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah seriosuly man
all you have to do is click the little reply button and a new comment box appears right under the comment you want to reply too. It’s pretty simple and it makes things so much easier to follow.
"I'll be honest with you, I love his music, I do, I'm a Michael Bolton fan. For my money, I don't know if it gets any better than when he sings "When a Man Loves a Woman"
by 49erLou on May 28, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















