For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    It says here Pats should be around 6 as well - at this point in time. But if I had to bet on a team in 6 weeks I would say I expect them to be in the top 3-4 with 49ers, Giants and Houston. I am still not sold on Atlanta but I get it. Consider that no team is without issues. Here are the Pats strengths:

    1. One of top 3 passing games in league

    2. One of top 4 running games in league

    3. One of top 3 run D's in league

    4. Solid kicker and punter

    5. Solid punt ccoverage

    6. Solid punt return team

    7. One of deepest teams overall

    Their weaknesses:

    -1. Pass coverage: should get a little better with two rookies Dennard and Wilson getting time and with Gregory learning system. Perhaps even Dolwing who has had a few very good plays though several bad ones

    -2. Pass rush does not cause enough pressures though a fair number of sacks

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Redo..was not thinking about the Texans getting blown out.

    1.  Giants
    2.  Packers
    3. Texans
    4. Falcons
    5. 49'ers
    6. Patriots
    7. Bears
    8. Vikings (tie)
    8. Steelers (t)
    9. Seahawks
    10. Miami

     No Ravens

    Also Ryan need to prove he is clutch before I can rank falcons #1..that means playoff clutch.

    Pats beat Seahawks 4 of 5 times, never seen so many strategic errors in one game.

    When Packers get going no one can really beat them and that is starting up again.

    Giants are better than either one of their SB teams and if they win this year won't be due to luck.

    NE is one CB from being #1 or #2..thinking a trade to get one would be good at this point.

    [/QUOTE]

    its a lot to keep track of. we are a lil more similar now

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    lost to seattle (where do you have seattle) and made their qb look like an all pro, like almost  every other qb. if we play how weve played last few games, we might get beat by teams below #12, ie and put us in the mid teens.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lost to Seattle, IN Seattle, where they have 1 of the best home field advantages in all of football, by a single point.  Conventional wisdom confers 3 points for home field.

    Also, their loss to the Ravens was IN Baltimore, again by a single point, on a last second field goal.  And that was when the Ravens were playing a lot better than they are now.

    I have a feeling that in your striving to be "obective", you're actually overcompensating and rating the Pats lower than they really should be.  Power rankings are not as simple as "A beat B, therefore A is ranked higher than B."  I believe right now, the Pats should be ranked above the Seahawks and Ravens (not to mention the mess that is the Steelers).  Conversely, the Broncos are playing really well right now, and probably deserve the higher ranking, despite the Pats beating them pretty handily.

    [/QUOTE]

    hi matt, thanks for the thoughts.

    can you share your rankings as of last sunday.

    you read my premise right.

    you saw a depleted jets team, might say decimated, played us to overtime and lost only because they gave the game back to us 4 times, td drop, redzone drop, intercept drop, sanchez missing hill in endzone. it was a super lucky win, and a non jet or pats fan might say the jets deserved that game more.

    i still say, a few here are rating us based on our potential, our talent, etc. not on how we played last sunday and who woulda beat who last sunday.

    re seattle, so 3 points, and where did you have seattle rated that week. if we were 6th why could we not beat a team we give 3 points to who is well, well below 6th in the league?

    just a few points here.

    [/QUOTE]


    Jets game was defensive battle...even without Revis a motivated Jets defense is among the best in the league and has given some impressive defensive performances. Rex Ryan is actually a great defensive strategist and usually knows what to do against the Pats.

    Don't be fooled by the Jets occasionally being blown out..for some reason when they are bad they are really bad...

    [/QUOTE]

    all that given,. where did youhve themn ranked sunday. they played us to a tie. that should reflect in our ratings

    [/QUOTE]


    A one week snapshot is not very indicative of team strength.

    Taking into account every outcome and being consistent with rankings over multi-weeks is impossible.

    Given that I have not thought about ranking the Jets, I consider all the rest of the teams in a big blob at number 11 in the ranking where any team can beat any other one.

    I know the NFL has a lot of parity so one point games and OT games don't nessesarily mean the teams are even in a 5 game series.

    [/QUOTE]

    look i dont think the pats are even with the jets. but the depleted jets who have been crap as well as their crap qb beat our team except on the scorebaord thanks to 4 drops on off and def. by jets. that is why i have them at 11 not 6

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pats should be about #6. 12 is way low.

    [/QUOTE]

    thanks for your opinon. why not list your 12 or more for fun?

    i see we were lucky to beat jets.

    lost to seattle (where do you have seattle) and made their qb look like an all pro, like almost  every other qb. if we play how weve played last few games, we might get beat by teams below #12, ie and put us in the mid teens.

    [/QUOTE]


    Then again, we have 3 losses by a total of 4 points. One was a very make-able miss by Gost, the other a missed FG by the other guys the replacement refs blew.

    [/QUOTE]

    close games all should hve been won if we coached halfway decent for those games. we didnt and are lucky to be 4 and 3 and not 3 and 4

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It says here Pats should be around 6 as well - at this point in time. But if I had to bet on a team in 6 weeks I would say I expect them to be in the top 3-4 with 49ers, Giants and Houston. I am still not sold on Atlanta but I get it. Consider that no team is without issues. Here are the Pats strengths:

    1. One of top 3 passing games in league

    2. One of top 4 running games in league

    3. One of top 3 run D's in league

    4. Solid kicker and punter

    5. Solid punt ccoverage

    6. Solid punt return team

    7. One of deepest teams overall

    Their weaknesses:

    -1. Pass coverage: should get a little better with two rookies Dennard and Wilson getting time and with Gregory learning system. Perhaps even Dolwing who has had a few very good plays though several bad ones

    -2. Pass rush does not cause enough pressures though a fair number of sacks

     

    [/QUOTE]

    it says where we ar 6th.?

    i agree where we belong is in the top 4 and hopefullly make it ther by end of season so we have  a shot at the sb

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    Power rankings never mean anything but its interesting to see teams move up or down and how others think teams stack up against each other.

    Id probably have the Patriots somewhere around 10th but they have the potential to move way up, even to the top.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Power rankings never mean anything but its interesting to see teams move up or down and how others think teams stack up against each other.

    Id probably have the Patriots somewhere around 10th but they have the potential to move way up, even to the top.

    [/QUOTE]

    i would put the 1984 49ers on top myself

    [/QUOTE]

    That 49er team with Steve Young would be right up there. The year he won the Super bowl.

    85 bears best defense.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    All you who put the Vikings, I'm sure you'll move them even higher after their scintillating performance tonight. That was special. 

    Pats are in the 6-8 range right now IMO. 

    Giants, Packers, 49ers, Houston, Atlanta looking like best teams in the league at this juncture. 

    (I kind of like the Saints in a spoiler role but they are too far out to take too seriously). 

    To me, the interesting teams are: Bears (if Cutler and offense can be consistent they move up into top group), and Seattle which could surprise some people - or not. Right now I have those two in the same general grouping as the Pats. 

    Steelers are lurking around and always dangerous, I'll put them in same grouping for now. 

    (call it a midlevel grouping)

    Below that are a number of teams, Vikings, Cowboys, Jets and so on. One of them will make a move. 

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pats should be about #6. 12 is way low.

    [/QUOTE]

    thanks for your opinon. why not list your 12 or more for fun?

    i see we were lucky to beat jets.

    lost to seattle (where do you have seattle) and made their qb look like an all pro, like almost  every other qb. if we play how weve played last few games, we might get beat by teams below #12, ie and put us in the mid teens.

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Patriots beat Denver but look where you have the Broncos ranked. Also, even before last night I would have said Minnesota at 6 is ludacris.

    If being lucky to beat the Jets works negatively against NE then why is NYG at #1 when they barely beat and were lucky to beat the Redskins? The Steelers lost to the flipping Titans. Why are they ahead of NE? I strongly disagree with a lot of your list. I'd probably put Chicago in the top 5 with NE and GB being either 6 or 7.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Power rankings never mean anything but its interesting to see teams move up or down and how others think teams stack up against each other.

    Id probably have the Patriots somewhere around 10th but they have the potential to move way up, even to the top.

    [/QUOTE]

    agree.

    as far as not meaning anything does anyythign here eman anything. its sports. 

    it was started for a fun discussion. that is the meanign.

    thanks for your post.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    All you who put the Vikings, I'm sure you'll move them even higher after their scintillating performance tonight. That was special. 

    Pats are in the 6-8 range right now IMO. 

    Giants, Packers, 49ers, Houston, Atlanta looking like best teams in the league at this juncture. 

    (I kind of like the Saints in a spoiler role but they are too far out to take too seriously). 

    To me, the interesting teams are: Bears (if Cutler and offense can be consistent they move up into top group), and Seattle which could surprise some people - or not. Right now I have those two in the same general grouping as the Pats. 

    Steelers are lurking around and always dangerous, I'll put them in same grouping for now. 

    (call it a midlevel grouping)

    Below that are a number of teams, Vikings, Cowboys, Jets and so on. One of them will make a move. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    hey spanke, 

    like your thoughts.

    yes i moved vikes down to 12. they are a differnt rteam at home. and their qb aint gonna win them too many games this year

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pats should be about #6. 12 is way low.

    [/QUOTE]

    thanks for your opinon. why not list your 12 or more for fun?

    i see we were lucky to beat jets.

    lost to seattle (where do you have seattle) and made their qb look like an all pro, like almost  every other qb. if we play how weve played last few games, we might get beat by teams below #12, ie and put us in the mid teens.

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Patriots beat Denver but look where you have the Broncos ranked. Also, even before last night I would have said Minnesota at 6 is ludacris.

    If being lucky to beat the Jets works negatively against NE then why is NYG at #1 when they barely beat and were lucky to beat the Redskins? The Steelers lost to the flipping Titans. Why are they ahead of NE? I strongly disagree with a lot of your list. I'd probably put Chicago in the top 5 with NE and GB being either 6 or 7.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    its all fun. share your list.

    please read the premise. its based on everyones last gametime. so a loss 5 weeks a go is not as cirtical as last sunday. 

    enjoy.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    I don't put homerisom in my numbers, but Patriots are #4 in the NFL and almost tied for #1 in the AFC. 

    If they weren't consistently good on my stats week after week and year after year I'd get pilloried here for awful forecasts.  As it is I get shredded regularly by trolls for always overranking the Pats.

    Yahoo lists net points.  The Patriots are +54, second to Houston in the AFC.

    I don't go by wins and losses, especially not this year.  Seattle beat the Patriots fair and square with real refs and with their great homefield advantage.  Baltimore beat the Patriots with a legally blind field goal call by the scabs.  Arizona beat the Patriots when the scabs took back the winning touchdown with a phantom holding call.  The Pats may be 12th in the win-loss standings but I only care about who I expect to show up at next weeks game

    What are the Patriots' bloodlines? Bill Belichick and Tom Brady win roughly 75% of their games. By bloodlines alone, the Belichick-Brady team should be 12-4.  I happen to have them at 12.4.  That's about normal.

    Any other carryovers from the 14-2 and 13-3 teams of the past two years?  Sure thing!  Gronk, Hernandez, Wes Welker, take a trip down the roster.  Anyone who makes the Patriots #12 sure doesn't have the past two years in mind, nor have they explained how this year's Patriots differ significantly from last year's AFC Champion.

    Does the offense look weaker than last year?  Not really.  The defense?  The defensive secondary looks quite young and rotten, but at least this season they get some blitzers into the quarterback's blind side. 

    Calling a team "old" isn't very polite.  "Old" means that the team probably isn't getting better and is subject to injuries.  Judging by the starters' ages, Baltimore is, well, "Seniors".  The Patriots are a young and raw team, even including Tom Brady, and Brady's the same as he was in his record-setting 2011 year.  The rookies mess up like crazy, but two months from now maybe they won't mess up as much. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Starting today this is the 3 of 5 game winners (if they played 5 games) pecking order. Based on performance to date augmented for injury, teams getting into synch and good coaching with which teams get better as the season progresses.

    1.  Texans
    2.  Giants
    3. Packers
    4. Falcons
    5. 49'ers
    6. Patriots
    7. Bears
    8. Vikings (tie)
    8. Steelers (t)
    9. Seahawks
    10. Miami

     No Ravens

    Also Ryan need to prove he is clutch before I can rank falcons #1..that means playoff clutch.

    Pats would beat Seahawks 4 of 5 times, never seen so many strategic errors in one game.

    When Packers get going no one can really beat them and that is starting up again.

    Giants are better than either one of their SB teams and if they win this year won't be due to luck.

    NE is one CB from being #1 or #2..thinking a trade to get one would be good at this point.

    Bears offense is still anemic and their defense relies on takewaways bad matchup for elite teams.

    [/QUOTE]


    first two weren't due to "luck" either  :  )

    [/QUOTE]


    I was thinking you would have something to say about that. You just can't let anything go.

     

    Nothing wrong with Luck.

    The PAtriots were lucky to even get  to the 2001 SB.

    They were lucky to get past the Raiders in the Tuck rule / snow game.

    They were Lucky to win against the Rams in the 2001 SB.

    The Giants were extremely lucky to get past the PAtriots in 2007 SB. The sequence of events were outrageous.

    They were good to even be in position to win..I will grant them that.

    Why is it so hard for you to admit what everyone else knows as fact??

    BTW it won;t take away the 2 Lombardeis from your team if you do.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOTBLITZ. Show HOTBLITZ's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    1. Giants

    2. Falcons

    3. Texans

    4. Bears

    5. 49'ers

    6. Packers

    7. Broncos

    8. Patriots

    9. Steelers

    10. Ravens

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Starting today this is the 3 of 5 game winners (if they played 5 games) pecking order. Based on performance to date augmented for injury, teams getting into synch and good coaching with which teams get better as the season progresses.

    1.  Texans
    2.  Giants
    3. Packers
    4. Falcons
    5. 49'ers
    6. Patriots
    7. Bears
    8. Vikings (tie)
    8. Steelers (t)
    9. Seahawks
    10. Miami

     No Ravens

    Also Ryan need to prove he is clutch before I can rank falcons #1..that means playoff clutch.

    Pats would beat Seahawks 4 of 5 times, never seen so many strategic errors in one game.

    When Packers get going no one can really beat them and that is starting up again.

    Giants are better than either one of their SB teams and if they win this year won't be due to luck.

    NE is one CB from being #1 or #2..thinking a trade to get one would be good at this point.

    Bears offense is still anemic and their defense relies on takewaways bad matchup for elite teams.

    [/QUOTE]


    first two weren't due to "luck" either  :  )

    [/QUOTE]


    I was thinking you would have something to say about that. You just can't let anything go.

     

    Nothing wrong with Luck.

    The PAtriots were lucky to even get  to the 2001 SB.

    They were lucky to get past the Raiders in the Tuck rule / snow game.

    They were Lucky to win against the Rams in the 2001 SB.

    The Giants were extremely lucky to get past the PAtriots in 2007 SB. The sequence of events were outrageous.

    They were good to even be in position to win..I will grant them that.

    Why is it so hard for you to admit what everyone else knows as fact??

    BTW it won;t take away the 2 Lombardeis from your team if you do.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    it is interesting in the use of the words " Luck' and "Playmaker". It seems this view is shared simultaneously by both fans, winners and losers. I always remember BB saying " we made the plays when we had to' when Pats won and him saying "They made the plays when they had to and we didn't', when Pats lost

    That being said I give the man all the credit for not sying " that Tyree hat catch was *$#^ ing luck"

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Starting today this is the 3 of 5 game winners (if they played 5 games) pecking order. Based on performance to date augmented for injury, teams getting into synch and good coaching with which teams get better as the season progresses.

    1.  Texans
    2.  Giants
    3. Packers
    4. Falcons
    5. 49'ers
    6. Patriots
    7. Bears
    8. Vikings (tie)
    8. Steelers (t)
    9. Seahawks
    10. Miami

     No Ravens

    Also Ryan need to prove he is clutch before I can rank falcons #1..that means playoff clutch.

    Pats would beat Seahawks 4 of 5 times, never seen so many strategic errors in one game.

    When Packers get going no one can really beat them and that is starting up again.

    Giants are better than either one of their SB teams and if they win this year won't be due to luck.

    NE is one CB from being #1 or #2..thinking a trade to get one would be good at this point.

    Bears offense is still anemic and their defense relies on takewaways bad matchup for elite teams.

    [/QUOTE]


    first two weren't due to "luck" either  :  )

    [/QUOTE]


    I was thinking you would have something to say about that. You just can't let anything go.

     

    Nothing wrong with Luck.

    The PAtriots were lucky to even get  to the 2001 SB.

    They were lucky to get past the Raiders in the Tuck rule / snow game.

    They were Lucky to win against the Rams in the 2001 SB.

    The Giants were extremely lucky to get past the PAtriots in 2007 SB. The sequence of events were outrageous.

    They were good to even be in position to win..I will grant them that.

    Why is it so hard for you to admit what everyone else knows as fact??

    BTW it won;t take away the 2 Lombardeis from your team if you do.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    everyone knows as "fact"?

    oh u mean everyone is beantown and here...

    for the 1000th time, not only did the 07 team beat 13-3 dallas in dallas and 13-3 green bay in lambeau-in the 3rd coldest game in nfl history-, not only was brady demolished all afternoon and was lucky not to be sacked 10 times, not only did ur vaunted record-setting offense have 7 points for 57:30-(please show me the "luck" in any of this)-but, again for the 1000th time:

    on that last drive the giants went 83 yds in 2 minutes and they made 4-not one, not two, not three but four 3rd and longs...only one was the tyree play, so where is this "sequence" of outrageous events? and that perfect call/throw on the winning td? hobbs is still looking for his jock...

    not only did the pats have a much easier road to the 2007 SB but they had no answers for the d line/pass rush all day and had multiple chances to stop the winning drive-and didnt-end of story. no luck involved, just clutch vs choke, bad match-up, etc...

    and last year? once again, pats had 1 tough playoff game-after a cake schedule in reg season-and really talk about luck! a dropped td and a missed chip shot? come on...but giants beat 15-1 green bay at lambeau and 13-3 sf in san francisco...and the winning drive-where eli carved ur d up like a turkry on thanksgiving-started with perhaps the most perfectly thrown and caught ball in sb history-including bradshaw to swan, rothlesburger to holmes and starr to magee.

    to wit: in jints 2 championship runs this was the records of the teams they beat:

    2007: 51-13

    2011: 50-16

    with 5 of 6 on the road and two neutral sites

     

    METHINKS YOUR LUCKY WHINE HAS BEEN PROVEN BS ONCE AND FOR ALL.

    AND REALLY EVERYONE KNOWS THIS OUTSIDE NEW ENGLAND 

    now this really tired hackneed dull past nonsense is done  :  )

     

    can't we all get along?

    [/QUOTE]


    I have to agree Samuel dropping the Lombardi, and Welker dropping a probable Lombardi is in neither case luck. They call that choking.

     

    But the Tyree catch was about as lucky as I have ever seen. Oh well, that's part of the game too.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pats should be about #6. 12 is way low.

    [/QUOTE]

    thanks for your opinon. why not list your 12 or more for fun?

    i see we were lucky to beat jets.

    lost to seattle (where do you have seattle) and made their qb look like an all pro, like almost  every other qb. if we play how weve played last few games, we might get beat by teams below #12, ie and put us in the mid teens.

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Patriots beat Denver but look where you have the Broncos ranked. Also, even before last night I would have said Minnesota at 6 is ludacris.

    If being lucky to beat the Jets works negatively against NE then why is NYG at #1 when they barely beat and were lucky to beat the Redskins? The Steelers lost to the flipping Titans. Why are they ahead of NE? I strongly disagree with a lot of your list. I'd probably put Chicago in the top 5 with NE and GB being either 6 or 7.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    hey z while ur spouting off explain how a 70 yd td pass to win a game with 1:30 left "lucky"? especially one that hits the wr in stride, perfectly executed

    u people throw that "luck" crapolla around waaaaaaay too much

    [/QUOTE]

    Spout off? Please, Jints, you spout off more than most here. As far as I'm concerned a win is a win, the lucky jab was for the sake of this discussion because Bredbru said the Pats were lucky to beat the Jets. All I was saying is the Giants win was just as ugly as the Pats was. I was very surprised to see him rank them below teams like Minnesota, Seattle, Denver.

    Anyway, here's my list.

    1. Atlanta (number 1 until they're beaten)

    2. Houston

    3. New York

    4. San Francisco

    5. Chicago

    6. Green Bay

    7. Baltimore

    8. New England

    9. Pittsburgh

    10. Denver

    11. Minnesota

    12. Seattle

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: For Fun, Your power Rankings (without homerism), eyeballs, based on Performance, as is Today

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    this is not who we want to be best, or who will be at the end of the year

    but this past sunday, who wins 3 of 5 head to head.

    here is my shot:

    1.giants 2. pack 3. atlanta 4. 9ers 5. houston 6. minn 7. bears 8. ravens 9. denver 10. steelers 11. seahawks 12. patriots (with philly on their heels)   good discussion welcome. rose colored wishing, will ignore. we all want the pats to win the super bowl. this is how things actually looked last sunday   another note, im not rating the talent. wed be in the top 3-4, but only performance on the field as of last week.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think quarterback play and coaching puts us ahead of six of the teams you mentioned above us, but for overall team talent (outside of the QB) I'd put us somewhere in the lower portion of the league. In my opinion if you put this coach and this QB on even some of the worst teams in the league, they would be better overall than us. I say that because I think we have the worst defense in football and I believe the QB would make just about any offense pretty darn good - similar to what Manning has done in Denver. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share