deeshopper Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Does the AFC North really suck, or is it just an illusion? Since the inception of the AFC North in 2002, its teams have won three superbowls. When a team has won, the following season has been a clunker. Take note: The 2005 Steelers went 11-5 and won the Super Bowl. The following year, they went 8-8.The 2008 Steelers went 12-4 and won the Super Bowl. The following year, they went 9-7.The 2012 Ravens went 10-6 and won the Super Bowl. So far this year, they are 4-5. The record books show that these two AFC North teams have been competitive since the division's inception. Baltimore has had only four losing seasons since 2002. The Steelers have had just one. Meanwhile, though the Bengals have recorded just four losing seasons in that same time period, they only also have four winning seasons. In the three remaining seasons, they finished 8-8. Dragging down the division, the Browns have had only two winning seasons. So, is the AFC North really as bad as it seems? I don't believe so. I believe the combination of the Ravens and Steelers having bad seasons at the same time is what is causing the division to look terrible. It should be noted that after a losing season (2002, 2005, 2007), the Ravens have recorded winning seasons the following year (2003, 2006, 2008), but losing in the playoffs (wildcard, division, and conference games, respectively). Likewise, after notching a losing season in 2003, the Steelers went to the playoffs and lost in the wildcard game in 2004. And, after an 8-8 season in 2006, the Steelers lost again the wildcard game in 2007. So, I write all of that to show that the Ravens, like the Steelers, have shown a consistency in winning and recovering from bad seasons. All may not be as bad as it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.