In the AFC where the NY Jets can beat New England, who beat Cincinnati, who beat Baltimore, who beat the NY Jets, it's hard to single out a clear cut favorite for the AFC. Most writers say the Texans are for real and I agree. They beat the Colts handily and came back on the road against what is shaping up to be a good Redskins team. The Texans are one of the very few teams I will consider solid in the AFC. The Colts remain to be seen. After losing to the Texans, they beat a Giants team that won against Carolina, who lost to Tampa the following week. San Diego even threw some more confusion in there by losing to the Chiefs, then beat Jacksonville, who beat Denver, who whipped up on Seattle, who whipped up on San Francisco, who played the defending Super Bowl champs New Orleans well, who barely beat an average Minnesota team. How about Pittsburgh who beat an Atlanta team, who whipped Arizona, who beat St. Louis like everybody including the Raiders can. Miami has won a game against a poor Buffalo team by 5 then by a Minnnesota team by four who lost to New Orleans, who barely beat the Niners, who got whipped by Seattle, who got whipped by Denver, who lost to Jacksonville, who got beat by San Diego, who got beat by.....THE CHIEFS! Are you getting my drift?
Trying to point out who are the good teams and who are the bad teams in what looks like an all around 8-8 AFC conference is like guessing how many gum balls are in a jar. A mathematician will measure the jar with his eyes and the gumballs mass and come up with at least a good guess. But these sports writers are just throwing darts at a board when it comes to "who is the best team in the AFC?" They are dismissing the Chiefs as a fluke without giving details as to why these other teams are better. The truth of the matter is that NONE of these teams in the AFC are that good. The 2010 AFC consists of very average teams. Sure, somebody is going to have to win it and go to the Super Bowl, but I submit to you that the AFC representative will not be that strong of a team compared to Super Bowl participants of the past. The Chiefs have just as many promising aspects and just as many question marks as the next team in the AFC. These sports writers picked teams like the Ravens or San Diego to go to the Super Bowl, but did Phillip Rivers look like a Super Bowl poised QB that Monday night? Is Joe Flacco going to turn things around? Is Flacco showing any ability that makes him a better QB than Matt Cassell? Can the Steelers keep winning on their D alone now that they have QB problems until Roethlisberger comes back? So I ask you, the reader or sports writer, just who is better than the Chiefs and WHY? Then ask yourself, doesn't this team you're claiming have just as many question marks as the Chiefs?