Later this week I'm going to be writing a feature for SB Nation's NFL page that grades each division through the first half of the 2011 season and ranks them from the best to the worst. Before that goes up, I figured I should go ahead and share with you what I already know.
The AFC North, composed of the Cincinnati Bengals, the Baltimore Ravens, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Cleveland Browns, is by far the best and, in my humble opinion, an argument for another division as best in the NFL can barely be made.
There are three divisions that contain three teams with winning records but not one division, other than the AFC North has three six-game winning teams. The Bengals and the Ravens have the best record in the AFC and if the season were to end today, the Bengals, Steelers and Ravens would all make the playoffs.
When it comes to the other divisions with three winning teams, the AFC East (Patriots, Jets and Bills have winning records) is beaten by the AFC because the Steelers and Ravens have better records and would edge the Jets and Bills out of the playoffs. Then you have the NFC North, which contains the league's only undefeated team, the Green Bay Packers, and even though both the Lions and the Bears have winning records, as Jamison Hensley points out, if you take away Green Bay's 8-0 record, the rest of the division has a 12-11 record.
Then you can take a look at the Browns, who have a 3-5 record. The Browns' record is tied with the Broncos' and the Redskins' and is better than eight other teams' records.
Then you have the defenses. The Ravens, Steelers and Bengals all have top-five defenses and the Browns are right behind them, ranked at No. 6.
So, when you think about it, can you think of many reasons that the AFC North shouldn't be ranked as the league's best division?