The NFC East has arguably the most parity of any division in the NFL

[Red Dragon]

The past four seasons, all four different teams have won the NFC East division title.



NFC East (4 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Cowboys
• 2010 division champion: Eagles
• 2011 division champion: Giants
• 2012 division champion: Commanders

By contrast:



NFC North (3 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Vikings
• 2010 division champion: Bears
• 2011 division champion: Packers
• 2012 division champion: Packers

NFC South (2 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Saints
• 2010 division champion: Falcons
• 2011 division champion: Saints
• 2012 division champion: Falcons

NFC West (3 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Cardinals
• 2010 division champion: Seahawks
• 2011 division champion: 49ers
• 2012 division champion: 49ers

AFC East:

• 2009 division champion: Patriots
• 2010 division champion: Patriots
• 2011 division champion: Patriots
• 2012 division champion: Patriots

AFC North (3 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Bengals
• 2010 division champion: Steelers
• 2011 division champion: Ravens
• 2012 division champion: Ravens

AFC South (2 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Colts
• 2010 division champion: Colts
• 2011 division champion: Texans
• 2012 division champion: Texans

AFC West (3 different division champions over the past four seasons):

• 2009 division champion: Chargers
• 2010 division champion: Chiefs
• 2011 division champion: Broncos
• 2012 division champion: Broncos

 

[Lazyking]

parity aka mediocrity?

 

[Tricericon]

parity aka mediocrity?

No. The gap between the best team in the league and an average team in a given year has actually increased (at least statistically) over the last 20 years. "Parity" is an increased turnover in which teams are good, not how good they are.

Frankly, that's a good thing.

 

[Lazyking]

No. The gap between the best team in the league and an average team in a given year has actually increased (at least statistically) over the last 20 years. "Parity" is an increased turnover in which teams are good, not how good they are.

Frankly, that's a good thing.

I understand that but that doesn't mean that parity can't also equal the least bad team for that year rising up. The NFC east this year is mediocre. Sure, their is no dominant team, and yes it is parity but its also really bad.

 

[Lonestar94]

2007: Giants
2008: Giants
2009: Cowboys
2010: Eagles
2011: Giants
2012: Commanders
2013: ??

I'd say it's about our time.

 

[zack]

2007: Giants
2008: Giants
2009: Cowboys
2010: Eagles
2011: Giants
2012: Commanders
2013: ??

I'd say it's about our time.

God I wish we played in the Pats division. Must be nice to steamroll easy teams year in and year out. Reminds me of the 49ers in the 90s. That division was so weak.

 

[Risen Star]

2007: Giants
2008: Giants
2009: Cowboys
2010: Eagles
2011: Giants
2012: Commanders
2013: ??

I'd say it's about our time.

The Cowboys won the division in 2007.

 

[Keifer]

No. The gap between the best team in the league and an average team in a given year has actually increased (at least statistically) over the last 20 years. "Parity" is an increased turnover in which teams are good, not how good they are.

Frankly, that's a good thing.

No its not. Parity sucks.
The NFL has created a system where if you develop players and build a dominant team you will be forced to let some of them go in free agency just so its fair for everybody, I think thats bs. Give me dynasties any day. Football seemed a lot more fun when you had super teams going head to head not a bunch of average to above average teams that changed from year to year.

 

[dupree89]

The gap between the best team in the league and an average team in a given year has actually increased (at least statistically) over the last 20 years.
.

I can buy that. Nicely done.
However, and I am not sure how one would go about doing this, but I am also inclined to believe that if you took the # 7 team today and compared it to the # 25 team today, the difference is not as much as it used to be.

 

[Titleist]

parity aka mediocrity?

Not when our division has had a Super Bowl winner twice in the last 6 years (Giants). I remember our division was getting bashed a couple years ago and called the "NFC Least" (similar to this year, actually). Then of course the Giants steamrolled everyone in the playoffs and the NFCE critics shut up real quick.

 

[dupree89]

No its not. Parity sucks.
The NFL has created a system where if you develop players and build a dominant team you will be forced to let some of them go in free agency just so its fair for everybody, I think thats bs. Give me dynasties any day. Football seemed a lot more fun when you had super teams going head to head not a bunch of average to above average teams that changed from year to year.

Totally agree. Give me the days when the 6 division winners were usually:

Dolphins (once in awhile the Pats)
Steelers
Raiders
Cowboys (once in awhile Commanders)
Vikings
Rams

 

[Lonestar94]

The Cowboys won the division in 2007.

Right.

I didn't really mean "division leaders" just "who did more"

 

[Red Dragon]

I think the AFC has, for a long time, had less parity than the NFC.


If you want to look at another aspect, every single AFC championship from 2003-2011 was won by the Colts, Patriots or Steelers.

• 2003 AFC champions: Patriots
• 2004 AFC champions: Patriots
• 2005 AFC champions: Steelers
• 2006 AFC champions: Colts
• 2007 AFC champions: Patriots
• 2008 AFC champions: Steelers
• 2009 AFC champions: Colts
• 2010 AFC champions: Steelers
• 2011 AFC champions: Patriots

 

[Red Dragon]

By contrast, the NFC had 10 different conference champions from 2002-2012:

• 2002 NFC champions: Buccaneers
• 2003 NFC champions: Panthers
• 2004 NFC champions: Eagles
• 2005 NFC champions: Seahawks
• 2006 NFC champions: Bears
• 2007 NFC champions: Giants
• 2008 NFC champions: Cardinals
• 2009 NFC champions: Saints
• 2010 NFC champions: Packers
• 2011 NFC champions: Giants
• 2012 NFC champions: 49ers

 

[Lazyking]

the whole "dynasties were better for the sport" is bs.. Yes, dynasties grew fanbases and team identies but on the other side it of it, the bottom feeders were always clearly defined. That hurts the sport in the long run.

Of course, I miss when the Cowboys were Super bowl contenders but if this team was managed and coached better, we wouldn't be an avg. team year in and year out. It's not like you can't be a great team for years.. The pats have proven it can be done.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

the whole "dynasties were better for the sport" is bs.. Yes, dynasties grew fanbases and team identies but on the other side it of it, the bottom feeders were always clearly defined. That hurts the sport in the long run.

Of course, I miss when the Cowboys were Super bowl contenders but if this team was managed and coached better, we wouldn't be an avg. team year in and year out. It's not like you can't be a great team for years.. The pats have proven it can be done.

The Pats haven't won anything in a long time. They contend, but they don't win anymore. And no other team has consistently won championships either. I preferred the days when a franchise was rewarded for drafting well and developing players and actually being able to keep those players after developing them. There was the possibility of sustained success back then. And I don't mean three years and back to mediocrity. Under the old system, it was possible for a good coaching staff and good front office to truly build something. They called them dynasties. As far as perennial bottom feeders, they get the highest draft picks so it's their own fault if they never achieve success.

 

[Lazyking]

The Pats haven't won anything in a long time. They contend, but they don't win anymore. And no other team has consistently won championships either. I preferred the days when a franchise was rewarded for drafting well and developing players and actually being able to keep those players after developing them. There was the possibility of sustained success back then. And I don't mean three years and back to mediocrity. Under the old system, it was possible for a good coaching staff and good front office to truly build something. They called them dynasties. As far as perennial bottom feeders, they get the highest draft picks so it's their own fault if they never achieve success.

A team shouldn't just be able to buy the best players and dominate. Lets not act like the Cowboys teams of the 90s was all drafted. It wasn't. In Today's NFL, you need a great quarterback. its why even with a subpar team in alot of areas, the Cowboys are usually in the playoff hunt. That is one of things in football that has never changed. The Pats may not win the Super bowl but they are in the playoffs almost every year. Turnover in the league is overstated. You still need to draft well and coach even better.

 

[dupree89]

A team shouldn't just be able to buy the best players and dominate. Lets not act like the Cowboys teams of the 90s was all drafted. It wasn't. In Today's NFL, you need a great quarterback. its why even with a subpar team in alot of areas, the Cowboys are usually in the playoff hunt. That is one of things in football that has never changed. The Pats may not win the Super bowl but they are in the playoffs almost every year. Turnover in the league is overstated. You still need to draft well and coach even better.

Bingo! In today's NFL, I think the (3) most important people in the organization are:

GM
Head Coach
QB

If you are above average with those three, you have a decent shot of being a regular playoff team.

 

[Lazyking]

Bingo! In today's NFL, I think the (3) most important people in the organization are:

GM
Head Coach
QB

If you are above average with those three, you have a decent shot of being a regular playoff team.

And its always been like that really except now you can't just keep adding people. Making it more diffcult to be successful is good.

I would say the QB is hardest to find because to me, Not even half the starters are really good. You could have a great coach and great gm and still win, but you're not likely to be in the Super bowl.

Unfortunately for the Cowboys, they have a buffon GM and a yes man as a head coach.

 

[Don Corleone]

the whole "dynasties were better for the sport" is bs.. Yes, dynasties grew fanbases and team identies but on the other side it of it, the bottom feeders were always clearly defined. That hurts the sport in the long run.

Of course, I miss when the Cowboys were Super bowl contenders but if this team was managed and coached better, we wouldn't be an avg. team year in and year out. It's not like you can't be a great team for years.. The pats have proven it can be done.

That's BS. The bottom feeders often chose to be bottom feeders. The Cardinals, for example, were perfectly content to suck so long as they didn't break the bank on players.