NFC East league's toughest division past five seasons, by far

[polamalubeast]

When the Washington Redskins selected Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III with the No. 2 overall pick of the 2012 NFL Draft, the buzz among insiders and fans alike was that the league's toughest division just got even tougher.

But is the NFC East truly the strongest of the league's eight divisions? We hoped an examination of the data would provide an answer, and we weren't disappointed.

The project

To determine the relative strength of the NFL's divisions, we first had to determine an appropriate time frame. We settled on five years, which for many studies would be too small of a sample size. However, if you go back much farther, you begin to dilute the findings with data from more and more players and coaches who are no longer with those teams.


Next, we decided on six different sets of data for our points of comparison:

• Winning percentage in non-divisional games

• Point differential in non-divisional games

• Number of playoff teams

• Playoff winning percentage

• Number of conference champions

• Number of Super Bowl champions

This data sample strikes a balance between regular season and postseason success while also giving credit to divisions with teams that won the NFL's ultimate prize, the Lombardi Trophy.

We then ranked the divisions in each of the six categories, giving eight points to the best division and one point to the worst division in each category. That yields a scale of 48 points as the best possible score and eight points as the worst possible score.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...#ixzz1usxSUdvR

[SteelGhost]

Maybe the competition is hard, BUT definitely the NFC East is not the "toughest" IMHO

[steelreserve]

I don't agree with that. You have the up-and-down Giants who have gone on a couple of runs by playing way over their heads in the playoffs. You have the up-and-down Eagles, who don't do anything in the playoffs. And the Cowboys who are about a .500-level team that sometimes steals a wild card spot when the Eagles or Giants have a down year. And the Redskins who are good for two free wins to everyone else (aka Cleveland Browns East).

I'd argue that the AFC North has two teams that are consistently legitimate contenders, every year for about the past decade and a half, plus sometimes a third team that's pretty good. That's more than most divisions can say.

[polamalubeast]

I don't agree with that. You have the up-and-down Giants who have gone on a couple of runs by playing way over their heads in the playoffs. .

I disagree that the Giants have played over their heads

They are a great playoff team with an amazing pass rush and a great clutch QB

[steelreserve]

I disagree that the Giants have played over their heads

They are a great playoff team with an amazing pass rush and a great clutch QB

They were also 9-7 in the regular season and they missed the playoffs twice in a row before this year; don't forget that. I think they're something like 4 or 5 games over .500 for the past three seasons combined. Either they've been playing over their heads in the playoffs, or they've been playing below their ability in the regular season.

They definitely seem to peak at the right time, which I am very thankful for since it always seems to happen when they play the Patriots. But when they're not on a postseason run, they're quite beatable.

[fansince'76]

They were also 9-7 in the regular season...

Yep. Try and make the playoffs in the AFC North with a 9-7 record. It ain't happening.

[steelreserve]

Yep. Try and make the playoffs in the AFC North with a 9-7 record. It ain't happening.

I have to point out that the Bengals did that last year, but that was more because they were extremely lucky than anything else (plus they got the second wild card, good luck winning the division like that). I totally understand your point.

One more interesting thing I noticed - last year, 8 teams (a quarter of the league!) went 8-8, and there were 13 teams between 7-9 and 9-7. And that's happened 5 of the last 6 years - almost half the league within a game of .500. So either it's been a weird few years, or the league is really starting to achieve its goal of lockstep parity through massive regulation.

Just for fun, I looked up the 5 years before the 1993 CBA, and that happened zero times and usually wasn't even close. Then it started happening most of the time after that. I'm sure some people will hail that as more "competitive," although that's open for debate as far as I'm concerned.

[polamalubeast]

They were also 9-7 in the regular season and they missed the playoffs twice in a row before this year; don't forget that. I think they're something like 4 or 5 games over .500 for the past three seasons combined. Either they've been playing over their heads in the playoffs, or they've been playing below their ability in the regular season.

They definitely seem to peak at the right time, which I am very thankful for since it always seems to happen when they play the Patriots. But when they're not on a postseason run, they're quite beatable.

in 2009, it was a bad year and in 2010, if the Giants would not have had the collapse against the Eagles, the Giants would finish the season with a record of 11-5 and they would have had a bye in the playoffs.


Also during the regular season in 2011, the Giants have had several injuries(osi,Tuck,etc) and since several years, they often have a very difficult schedule

In the last nine years, 7 times the Giants have been one of the five toughest schedules in the NFL

[steelreserve]

in 2009, it was a bad year and in 2010, if the Giants would not have had the collapse against the Eagles, the Giants would finish the season with a record of 11-5 and they would have had a bye in the playoffs.

Also during the regular season in 2011, the Giants have had several injuries(osi,Tuck,etc) and since several years, they often have a very difficult schedule

In the last nine years, 7 times the Giants have been one of the five toughest schedules in the NFL

I'm not really interested in what-ifs and excuses. The Giants DID have the collapse against the Eagles, they DID have a bad year in 2009, and injuries are a part of the game that happens to every team. They may be a talented team, but their performance on the field has been just slightly above average. Almost half the teams that have played them in the past 3 years have beaten them. By definition, I'd say that doesn't make them one of the "toughest" teams.

Over the past few years, the Eagles have probably been the most consistently good team in the NFC East, and they're usually good but not great. The remaining two teams in that division are a joke.

[suitanim]

Nonsense.

[st33lersguy]

The NFC East is all hype. The Giants are average at best in the regular season and only play consistent football in the postseason, the Eagles are merely good, not spectacular and not on the same level as teams like Pittsburgh or Baltimore, Dallas is by far the most overrated team in the NFL. People just assume the Cowboys are a tough team to play and are good just because they have DeMarcus Ware and the overrated Tony Choko. The Redskins suck, have one of the least talented teams in the NFL, and one of the 3 worst FOs in the NFL. It is amazing that people actually think this team is now good simply because the swept the Giants and now have RG3

[Hindes204]

I think the NFC North is tougher than the NFC East, especially with the young talent Detroit has. The AFC North had three playoff teams last year, how is that not considered better than the NFC East...this was a dumb article

[suitanim]

If you take the Giants out of this division, it's second weakest to only the NFC West. How many times in the last few years have we heard about how the AFC North has one of the most difficult schedules? The Redskins and Cowboys are probably equal to the Browns and Bengals, maybe a bit <<<, but the Steelers and Ravens are definitely >>> then the Eagles and Giants. It's basically a one-team division lately...