Still the NFC Worst?
by Rob Staton
27/1/2009
 For a few years now, the NFC West has affectionately been renamed the ‘NFC Worst’. Under performing teams regularly picking in the top ten in the NFL draft. Every year always amongst the dark horses and with a strange familiarity always failing to live up to expectations. Many pundits will tell you it’s the worst division in football.
So why is it the only division in the NFC to have Super Bowl representation twice in the last five years? That’s right - more than the NFC East (or ’beast’ as it’s been come to known) more than the NFC South and it’s highly touted quartet from 2008. Also more than the NFC North.
When the Arizona Cardinals take to the field for Super Bowl XLIII this weekend they’ll be gunning for divisional revenge. The last time the NFC West was in the big game (2006) the Seattle Seahawks fell to the Pittsburgh Steelers 21-10 in a game riddled with controversy. The Cards will hope they can go one better than the Hawks.
So is it time to respect the west?
 It’s not hard to work out why it’s been given such a critical review. Since the realignment in 2002, the NFC West is a combined 192-256. Only the Seahawks (62-50) have a winning record. When Seattle won the division each year from 2004-2007 claims were made that their success was in part due to the poor division they competed in. The same label was placed on Arizona going into this year’s playoffs and it took some eye catching wins over Atlanta, Carolina and Philadelphia to prove their relevancy.
Nobody questions it now, but it’s hard to argue that Arizona’s six wins in the woeful west this year essentially got them into the post season. They were 3-7 outside of the division - the three wins all coming on home field. Would the Cardinals have made the playoffs competing in anything other than the NFC West?
Even though the argument rightly shows the west will be the only division from the conference to have two Super Bowl teams in the last five years - they are yet to see a winner. Of course that could change on Sunday. The Pittsburgh Steelers will be gunning for their second title in the same five year time frame and unless the Cardinals stop them, those two Super Bowl appearances for the division will mean little without a trophy to show for it.
But does the west deserve to be frequently described as the worst division in football?
The AFC West contains the rudderless Raiders and the rebuilding Chiefs. The Chargers have promised much but failed to deliver. The division hasn’t had a representative in the Super Bowl since 2003 when Oakland lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
The NFC North is home to the 0-16 Detroit Lions. Green Bay have been anything but predictable over the years and will pick in the top ten in this year’s draft. Minnesota are yet to reach their full potential and question marks continue to cloud their situation at quarter back. The Chicago Bears recently participated in Super Bowl XLI but fell to the Colts 29-17.
 Ok, so it’s hard to justify the NFC West being particularly better than these divisions, especially in their current format. The Rams are a mess and new head coach Steve Spagnuolo has his work cut out. The 49ers showed some life under Mike Singletary but they need this to carry on into 2009. Seattle were one of the biggest disappointments in 2008 and start a new era with Jim Mora at the helm.
Is the NFC West the worst though? Does the Seahawks and Cardinals making the Super Bowl count for anything?
It certainly will if Arizona goes on to beat the Steelers. By winning the Lombardi trophy the Cardinals can complete a remarkable season and improve the credibility of the division in the process.
They might be rivals during the regular season but I just wonder if there are fans from San Francisco, St Louis and Seattle hoping the Cardinals can win it all. Maybe then, with the World Champions present, the NFC West won’t be so commonly referred to as the NFC Worst.
|
