Quote
Speed_Kills
I didn’t say the Texans because I think they are obvious SB contenders

You agreed with the Giants but you don't give credit to anyone picking the Texans because you think they are obvious SB contenders?

Sure the Texans are one of the consensus favorites to make a return to the playoffs in 2018 but they are still a step down the ladder to represent the SB for the AFC in 2018.

Obvious SB contenders doesn't fly that high with me even with their rookie phenom QB expected to back at full strength.

JJ Watt and Deshaun Watson are stars but the Texans went 4-12 in 2017 and even if they remain healthy in 2018, they still have to contend with the Patriots, Steelers. Many NFL insiders are projecting the Chargers to be in the AFC title mix based on overall roster talent.

You didn't make your post clear with a detailed criteria of what a dark horse pedigree is.

I selected 2 teams that had horrible records in 2017 (regardless of the reason why, they were what their record said they were.)

The Giants were 3-13 and the Texans were 4-12

You selected the Lions and their record was 9-7 in 2017 and they made the playoffs in 2016. Not really a big dark horse.

Lets take a look at the 2017 NFC NFL standings.

The Lions, Seahawks and Cowboys all went 9-7. Are they really dark horses in 2018 if anyone selects them?

The Cardinals, Packers and Redskins won 7 or more games. Are they really considered a dark horse?

Lets take a look at the 2017 AFC NFL standings.

The Ravens and Chargers won 9 games. Can we really consider them dark horses?

The Bengal won 7 games and the Raiders and Dolphins won 6 games yet both the Raiders and Dolphins made the playoffs in 2016 so are they really considered dark horses?

The 2 teams I selected won a total of 4 games or less.

When asking a question without giving a certain criteria of what qualifies them to be one...

You should probably add certain details and ....